Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I'd really like to know what this post, and the one you responded to, has to do with the subject of this thread.

Hi Lionking!

I'd really like to know what this post has to do with the subject of this thread.

Do you actually have anything to say about the subject of this thread? For example, at what time on November 1st do you think Meredith Kercher died? Or... do you think that the appeal court will accept or reject Curatolo's testimony from the first trial? Or.... what do you think the independent DNA report will say? DO you think it will report that the DNA results from the knife and the bra clasp are inadmissible (for a variety of reasons)?

 

[LondonJohn]

Both Hemaglow™ and Bluestar® are both commercial products based on luminol.

Yes: the important term here is "based on". Stainless steel is "based on" pig iron - but they are totally separate and distinct products, with different physical and chemical properties.

All this talk of "luminol" as a "generic" term is nonsense. Nurofen is a branded form of the generic drug ibuprofen - and therefore for most cases the names are interchangeable. If a doctor gave you two Nurofen for a muscle pain, he would be perfectly correct to say that he gave you ibuprofen.

But luminol is a different product from Bluestar or Hemaglow - these products are not simply luminol with a brand name. They have a different chemical composition (albeit one similar to luminol). I am confident that forensic scientists (even ones of the world-renowned expertise of Stefanoni) would refer to the exact testing chemical that they used.

 

[odeed]

Where are you getting this from? What is the source for the claim that "luminol" is used as a generic term for all of these various chemicals?

Simply repeating as claimed fact what Danceme speculated isn't actually an improvement. We still need some evidence for this claim.

Luminol^WP is just another name for the chemical 3-aminophthalhydrazide^WP, while Hemaglow, Bluestar, Grodsky, Webber I and Webber II are all different methods (or formulas) to test for blood using luminol as a base, contrary to what LondonJohn posted that Hemaglow and Bluestar were "not a form of luminol".

The use of "luminol test" is a general term which does not describe the method used.

 

[lionking]

Hi Lionking!

I'd really like to know what this post has to do with the subject of this thread.

Do you actually have anything to say about the subject of this thread? For example, at what time on November 1st do you think Meredith Kercher died? Or... do you think that the appeal court will accept or reject Curatolo's testimony from the first trial? Or.... what do you think the independent DNA report will say? DO you think it will report that the DNA results from the knife and the bra clasp are inadmissible (for a variety of reasons)?

Evasion noted.

 

[LondonJohn]

Luminol^WP is just another name for the chemical 3-aminophthalhydrazide^WP, while Hemaglow, Bluestar, Grodsky, Webber I and Webber II are all different methods (or formulas) to test for blood using luminol as a base, contrary to what LondonJohn posted that Hemaglow and Bluestar were "not a form of luminol".

The use of "luminol test" is a general term which does not describe the method used.

They are not a form of luminol. They are based on luminol, but they are different chemical compounds. Nurofen is a form of ibuprofen. Stainless steel is based on pig iron. Do you see the difference?

Oh, and you're wrong about the general term. The general term for such testing is a chemiluminescence test. Not a luminol test.

 

[LondonJohn]

Evasion noted.

There's no evasion at all. Do you have anything to say about the case itself? For example, at what time do you think Meredith Kercher died? Or do you think that the appeal court will accept or reject Curatolo's testimony from the first trial? Or what do you think the independent DNA report will say? Do you think it will report that the DNA results from the knife and the bra clasp are inadmissible?

Or are your posts now exclusively restricted to commenting on the nature of the discussion, rather than the case itself? I suspect that's the truth, and you're of course totally at liberty to restrict yourself in this way - but it's quite instructive to the rest of us.

 

[lionking]

There's no evasion at all. Do you have anything to say about the case itself? For example, at what time do you think Meredith Kercher died? Or do you think that the appeal court will accept or reject Curatolo's testimony from the first trial? Or what do you think the independent DNA report will say? Do you think it will report that the DNA results from the knife and the bra clasp are inadmissible?

Or are your posts now exclusively restricted to commenting on the nature of the discussion, rather than the case itself? I suspect that's the truth, and you're of course totally at liberty to restrict yourself in this way - but it's quite instructive to the rest of us.

tl;dr

 

[LondonJohn]

________________

John,

I don't usually approve of the personal attacks either. But why ain't Rocco on your list? I wonder,....will we be reading future sermons condemning this wealthy ---and married!---middle-aged businessman's "too intimate" relationship with Amanda? Maybe not.



[qimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=23&image_id=1937[/qimg]

///

Ah yes, very true. I had forgotten him amidst the rest of the people who have been attacked (often viciously) by various members of the pro-guilt brigade.

My personal view on Girlanda is that he may indeed be a bit of a political chancer, who's using the case to gain attention for himself. But that does not diminish most of the points he's making, and nor of course does it diminish the case for the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. The other thing to say about Girlanda is that many of the most ferocious pro-guilt attack dogs accuse him of focussing exclusively on Knox because she is a young attractive woman. They ask why he is not so vociferous in support of Sollecito. They forget that he is President of the Italian-American Foundation, and says that this is what drew him to the case of Knox specifically in the first place.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rubbish. I'm not English but I am British and I lived in England for 25 years. I'm very fond of raw mushroom and if I have a pack in the fridge might easily pick one up and eat it. I serve raw sliced mushroom in salads and I'm very guilty of popping a piece or two in my mouth while I'm preparing that. Even if I'm cooking mushrooms, I'm likely to pop a piece of raw mushroom in my mouth during the preparation.

Raw mushroom is nice, you should try it some time.

Rolfe.

I can confirm that English people do indeed eat raw mushrooms sometimes. But not raw German-grown beansprouts

 

[LondonJohn]

Can anyone link zeb to that video of the cops packing Meredith's suitcase? Be prepared, though, zeb; it should be rated H for Horrifying.

Ugh it's horrible. I had a quick look for it when I posted about it yesterday, but couldn't easily find it.

 

[LondonJohn]

No cassette tape necessary. Someone put up a photo here months ago showing Mignini standing outside the cottage on the day after the murder, mini digital recorder in hand.

Ah yeah, it's all gone digital now, innit?

But in fact I think that most police recordings (whether audio or video) are likely to remain with analogue magnetic tape formats for some time. This is not only because of the cost of upgrading recording equipment. It's mainly because tapes serve as a real-time linear physical recording of the proceedings. Typically, two physical copies are recorded simultaneously; at the end of the interview, the two tapes are removed from the machines and sealed in the presence of the interviewee, and one of the copies is given to the interviewee (or his/her legal representative). In this way, any future accusations of police (or defendant) evidence-tampering are minimised. Additionally, with magnetic tape, splicing or editing of any kind is much easier to detect than with recordings in a digital format.

And it bears repeating that Mignini is seriously (with a straight face!) suggesting that it's budgetary problems that contributed to the failure to record Sollecito's/Knox's interrogations on the 5th/6th - let alone Knox's post-arrest interviews after 1.45am on the 6th. It's utterly ludicrous to suggest that the interview rooms in the regional Police HQ of the entire Umbria region did not have recording equipment (at the very least audio recording, but almost certainly video recording too). And it's utterly ludicrous to suggest that budgetary problems meant that the police could not afford a couple of audio tapes or a couple of VHS/Betamax video tapes.

Oh, and it's also utterly ludicrous that the police weren't aware that this was a major criminal investigation into a high-profile murder, with international dimensions. Frankly, a failure to record interviews which took place within designated interview rooms at the regional police HQ would be puzzling in the case of a bicycle theft. In a major murder investigation, it's beyond incredible.

 

[odeed]

They are not a form of luminol. They are based on luminol, but they are different chemical compounds. Nurofen is a form of ibuprofen. Stainless steel is based on pig iron. Do you see the difference?

Oh, and you're wrong about the general term. The general term for such testing is a chemiluminescence test. Not a luminol test.

They are all based on luminol^WP, it is the reagent which is different.

From Bluestars Loic Blum http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/pdf/en/CSFS_vol39_bluestar_blum.pdf

"In conclusion, this new luminol reagent has been shown to be very efficient in forensic fields to localize washed/dilute bloodstains and is now used routinely in France."

As an aside why would Bluestar use luminol in it's description if luminol was already a brand name. It would be like saying Ibuleve contains Nurofen on the packaging.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: If Sollecito and Knox were only being brought in for a routine additional witness interview, why were there no fewer that TWELVE detectives from the Flying Squad present in the police HQ at around 11pm on a Monday night? Laughable. The police brought them in because they believed they had cracked the case, and the intention was to get them to crumble and confess.

Perhaps now is the right time to remind people of the now-immortal words of Perugia Police Chief Arturo de Felice, spoken in the triumphalist press conference called on the morning of the 6th November (my bolding):

"Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in. They all participated but had different roles."

There is simply no other way to interpret this post than that the police "knew" Knox was involved before she "confessed" to them that she was. She should therefore have been reclassified as a suspect before making the "confession/accusation". While de Felice does not specify for how long in advance the police "knew" the "correct" version, it's reasonable to suppose that it was at least before Knox's interrogation started ("Initially she gave a version of events we knew was not correct").

Personally, I suspect that the police "knew" the "correct" version of events before Knox and Sollecito were even summoned to the police HQ. I base that suspicion on two things: the way in which Sollecito was interviewed and persuaded to admit that he couldn't be certain of Knox's whereabouts in the middle of the night, and the sheer number of Flying Squad officers that just "happened" to be present in the police HQ in the middle of the night.

 

[Danceme]

On what exactly do you base this?

Snip

What you need to do is go and get some evidence. Evidence matters. Wishful thinking doesn't.

It's based on what I posted, and if you think I'm getting into a debate with you on what law enforcement refers to as luminol you're mistaken, ends here and now. Call victory if it makes you feel better but I'm not playing your silly game.

"Luminol (test)" is a generic term as used, as luminol can be applied to crime scenes using the Grodsky formula, Webber (I and II) formula, or in the commercial products mentioned.

Bluestar is similar as the Webber formula except the hydrogen peroxide is in tablet form (50-100%) rather than diluted in distilled water.

Thanks for taking up the torch odeed.

Luminol^WP is just another name for the chemical 3-aminophthalhydrazide^WP, while Hemaglow, Bluestar, Grodsky, Webber I and Webber II are all different methods (or formulas) to test for blood using luminol as a base, contrary to what LondonJohn posted that Hemaglow and Bluestar were "not a form of luminol".

The use of "luminol test" is a general term which does not describe the method used.

We know that's correct but I think you'll drive yourself mad if you take on the tag team of KL and LJ, not worth it.

They are not a form of luminol. They are based on luminol, but they are different chemical compounds. Nurofen is a form of ibuprofen. Stainless steel is based on pig iron. Do you see the difference?

Oh, and you're wrong about the general term. The general term for such testing is a chemiluminescence test. Not a luminol test.

Yes, I hear it every night when I watch CSI or Criminal Minds, "alright fellas, spray that luminol chemiluminescence test, and let's see what we have"

 

[LondonJohn]

They are all based on luminol^WP, it is the reagent which is different.

From Bluestars Loic Blum http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/pdf/en/CSFS_vol39_bluestar_blum.pdf

"In conclusion, this new luminol reagent has been shown to be very efficient in forensic fields to localize washed/dilute bloodstains and is now used routinely in France."

As an aside why would Bluestar use luminol in it's description if luminol was already a brand name. It would be like saying Ibuleve contains Nurofen on the packaging.

Firstly, I've never said that luminol is a brand name. It's not.

Secondly, Bluestar and Hemaglow do indeed use the base luminol chemical in their composition, but they are (as you say) bound with different reagents, so the chemical composition of the actual product is different than what would be termed "traditional luminol".

Thirdly, there is no mention whatsoever (in Massei or elsewhere) of anything other than the generic term "luminol". I think that if you asked any crime scene investigator or forensic scientist, they would say that the term "luminol testing" refers to the traditional test (the one against which Bluestar and Hemaglow are compared in all those studies that are cited in the marketing blurb for the improved products). It's possible that someone might use the brand name once of twice, then use the shorthand "luminol" in place of the more cumbersome term "chemiluminescence" - but "luminol" is the only term that has ever been used in this paricular case.

Lastly, Bluestar and Hemaglow are both significantly more expensive than traditional luminol. And we all know what kind of budgetary pressures the police have been under, don't we....

 

[LondonJohn]

It's based on what I posted, and if you think I'm getting into a debate with you on what law enforcement refers to as luminol you're mistaken, ends here and now. Call victory if it makes you feel better but I'm not playing your silly game.


Thanks for taking up the torch odeed.


We know that's correct but I think you'll drive yourself mad if you take on the tag team of KL and LJ, not worth it.



Yes, I hear it every night when I watch CSI or Criminal Minds, "alright fellas, spray that luminol chemiluminescence test, and let's see what we have"

Note that Stefanoni's testimony as listed in Massei is very specific about listing the precise proprietary testing kits used on the DNA samples - the exact names of the kits and the companies that manufacture them are given. But she seemingly only ever refers to "luminol testing". This heavily tends to suggest that it was not a proprietary product such as Bluestar or Hemaglow that was used, but that it was indeed what would be termed "traditional luminol".

And re your last paragraph, I already stated that the use of the shorthand "luminol" for chemiluminescence testing is most likely common. But when someone is testifying in court, one would expect them to describe the exact product used at least once - even if they then lapse into a shorthand for convenience. But that seemingly didn't happen in this case. All we read is "luminol".

 

[LondonJohn]

Interestingly, the Massei report lists in detail all the luminol testing carried out by the police in the girls' cottage (and in Sollecito's & Guede's apartments), but signally fails to mention the provenance of the photograph of the small bathroom in the girls' cottage with the large amount of pink staining. This staining was not blood, and nor was it the product of luminol testing. It was almost certainly the product of an incompetently-applied Kastle-Meyer test (using Phenolphthalein) - or an outside possibility is that it was the result of an equally-incompetently-applied superglue test.

Either way, this element of the forensic investigation appears to have been completely overlooked by Massei (and, by the looks of it, Stefanoni and the defence teams too). What did this test find, or - more pertinently - what didn't it find?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hope Amanda Knox parents remember to call Edgardo Giobbi as a witness. In AK trial he testified that during her interrogation he (who was the chief investigator) heard AK scream. This would go a long way in proving that AK was beaten and abused by the police. Which means they can not be guilty. Unless telling the truth is illegal in Italy.

Maybe she screamed because she fell on her head when she unsuccessfully tried to turn a cartwheel in the police station.

Or Edgardo Giobbi is lying.

Your choice.

 

[odeed]

Firstly, I've never said that luminol is a brand name. It's not.

You are wrong, your original post yesterday

...

If you want, I can post every reference to the word "luminol" in the Massei report (there are more than 50 of them...) as proof. "Luminol" is itself a brand name for the chemical 5-Amino-2,3-dihydro-1,4-phthalazinedione. And, I reiterate, neither Hemaglow nor Bluestar is a form of luminol - and as such neither product would be referred to as luminol by forensics specialists.

...

Secondly, Bluestar and Hemaglow do indeed use the base luminol chemical in their composition, but they are (as you say) bound with different reagents, so the chemical composition of the actual product is different than what would be termed "traditional luminol".

Bluestar is a mixture of Sodium Hydroxide and Luminol (Section 3.2), and separate oxidising agent Hydrogen Peroxide. Luminol still retains its exact chemical composition in a mixture, the same luminol chemical is mixed in a solution in the Grodsky, and Weber methods.

Thirdly, there is no mention whatsoever (in Massei or elsewhere) of anything other than the generic term "luminol". I think that if you asked any crime scene investigator or forensic scientist, they would say that the term "luminol testing" refers to the traditional test (the one against which Bluestar and Hemaglow are compared in all those studies that are cited in the marketing blurb for the improved products). It's possible that someone might use the brand name once of twice, then use the shorthand "luminol" in place of the more cumbersome term "chemiluminescence" - but "luminol" is the only term that has ever been used in this paricular case.

Massei makes reference to testimony during the trial, as for chemiluminescence/luminol terms and what you think, take it up with all the scientists and experts who have published articles on luminol testing.

Lastly, Bluestar and Hemaglow are both significantly more expensive than traditional luminol. And we all know what kind of budgetary pressures the police have been under, don't we....

The forensics department of Rome may have different budgets to the police department of Perugia.

Anyway the extra cost may outweigh the benefits of using a brand name, why buy Nurofen when a cheaper ibuprofen generic will do the same job, it should also be in the defendants advantage if there was a large difference in performance.

 

[tsig]

Any statement that the judges got it right is an argument from authority and being a sheeple in spite if the fact that the judges are the authority.

Any statement that a court verdict unarguably reflects objective truth is simply mindless. You can use the word sheeple if you want.

Judges and juries are fallible human beings like everybody else. They can be mistaken. They can be prejudiced. Or the truth can be the victim of the legal process, where admissibility and legal hair-splitting count for more than fact or logic.

We know for a fact that wrongful convictions occur. We can all reel off lists of people who were acquitted on appeal. Many of these people were the subject of discussions just like this before the appeal verdicts were announced. Court verdicts don't determine reality, and reality doesn't change because a verdict is overturned.

Justice is also supposed to be open and transparent. It should be possible for any reasonable person to understand why a particular verdict was reached, and why guilt was believed to be "beyond reasonable doubt". It's not an article of faith, you know. If it appears to many observers that there is indeed reasonable doubt, I would submit that something is wrong.

So yes, if you are simply stating that because a court decided something was so, then it unquestionably was so in reality, you are being a sheeple. If you can explain rationally why you believe the court verdict was indeed correct, then that's different of course. But a faith-based assertion of judicial infallibility is no more reasonable than a faith-based assertion of papal infallibility.
Rolfe.

You just had to throw that rock, didn't you.

Of course when I tell you that the faked break-in and Amanda's lying to the police make me doubt her innocence I will get accused of other crimes against rationality.