Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

I think all here do not believe that the traces were from blood. If blood, in such low concentration that the TMB test came back negative. Could the prints have come from Amanda stepping on the bath mat and then having one foot off the mat?

My question was and is: how did they get there? This isn't in any way saying they were Amanda's or that they had anything to do with the murder. If the floors were cleaned once a month, then they couldn't be more than a month old.

 

[acbytesla]

I think all here do not believe that the traces were from blood. If blood, in such low concentration that the TMB test came back negative. Could the prints have come from Amanda stepping on the bath mat and then having one foot off the mat?

My question was and is: how did they get there? This isn't in any way saying they were Amanda's or that they had anything to do with the murder. If the floors were cleaned once a month, then they couldn't be more than a month old.

My strong belief is that Amanda took a shower and the shower floor had some kind of chemical substance on the floor and that Amanda probably walked to her bedroom without stepping on the bathmat. Maybe the mat wasn't present when she did this.

 

[Grinder]

My strong belief is that Amanda took a shower and the shower floor had some kind of chemical substance on the floor and that Amanda probably walked to her bedroom without stepping on the bathmat. Maybe the mat wasn't present when she did this.

Amanda said she stepped out of the shower and stepped on the bath mat and then scooted/shuffled on the mat to her room. I don't remember if she said that she stepped off of it on the way with one foot or not. She made this declaration before the luminol prints were discovered.

ETA - if she had just sprayed down the shower with a cleaner I think we would have heard about it by now. I think it is more likely that there was a shampoo that had a substance in it that reacted with the Luminol and had been used up, maybe even by Meredith.

 

[acbytesla]

Amanda said she stepped out of the shower and stepped on the bath mat and then scooted/shuffled on the mat to her room. I don't remember if she said that she stepped off of it on the way with one foot or not. She made this declaration before the luminol prints were discovered.

ETA - if she had just sprayed down the shower with a cleaner I think we would have heard about it by now. I think it is more likely that there was a shampoo that had a substance in it that reacted with the Luminol and had been used up, maybe even by Meredith.

Your assuming that the footprints resulted from her last shower. I am NOT concluding that all.

It very well could be the result of a previous shower.

 

[Grinder]

Your assuming that the footprints resulted from her last shower. I am NOT concluding that all.

It very well could be the result of a previous shower.

Since the majority or all of the prints were from one foot as Chris alluded to, how would you explain that? Why wouldn't there be many more prints?

If one day had been different, for example she sprayed the shower with that shower stuff, why wasn't it mentioned?

If you weren't referring to the last shower, why mention not stepping on the mat? Obviously there wasn't blood on the mat before the murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

right feet

Since the majority or all of the prints were from one foot as Chris alluded to, how would you explain that? Why wouldn't there be many more prints?

If one day had been different, for example she sprayed the shower with that shower stuff, why wasn't it mentioned?

If you weren't referring to the last shower, why mention not stepping on the mat? Obviously there wasn't blood on the mat before the murder.

I am not certain that they were from a single foot (the ones in the hallway don't look all that similar to each other). But they are all right feet. I am not certain how they were made, when they were made, or who made them. They are not useful pieces of evidence, IMO.

The issue of a cleaning fluid is complicated. One would ideally like to know exactly which cleaning products were used, and then one would test them versus luminol. Not very easy to do if you are the defense with many issues on your plate.

 

[acbytesla]

I am not certain that they were from a single foot (the ones in the hallway don't look all that similar to each other). But they are all right feet. I am not certain how they were made, when they were made, or who made them. They are not useful pieces of evidence, IMO.

The issue of a cleaning fluid is complicated. One would ideally like to know exactly which cleaning products were used, and then one would test them versus luminol. Not very easy to do if you are the defense with many issues on your plate.

I don't know what the substance was, and it really is immaterial if the prosecution can't prove it to be blood. Grinder earlier said it couldn't be from rust from the pipes, because he believes that rust residue would be present all the time from the pipes. I'm not so sure. Does the concentration of iron in the water have to be a constant? I don't think so. Therefore rust could be present more significantly on the shower pan one one day more than another. I've turned on many faucets that might run red for a moment or two and then run clear.

Any presence of iron makes Luminol fluoresce. I think Luminol also reacts to copper? Never the less, It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove that it was blood and the evidence does not do that. And if you're the defense, you stop RIGHT there. It is not your job to determine what the substance is and why present speculation that will only be attacked?

 

[Grinder]

I don't know what the substance was, and it really is immaterial if the prosecution can't prove it to be blood. Grinder earlier said it couldn't be from rust from the pipes, because he believes that rust residue would be present all the time from the pipes. I'm not so sure. Couldn't the concentration of iron in the water have to be a constant? I don't think so. Therefore rust could be present more significantly on the shower pan one one day more than another. I've turned on many faucets that might run red for a moment or two and then run clear.

Any presence of iron makes Luminol fluoresce. I think Luminol also reacts to copper? Never the less, It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove that it was blood and the evidence does not do that. And if you're the defense, you stop RIGHT there. It is not your job to determine what the substance is and why present speculation that will only be attacked?

Look I've said a hundred times or more that the ILE didn't prove their case. I've said here recently at a time when you were posting.

And yes I've turned on a faucet that wasn't used for a long period of time OR when the screen in the faucet or shower head was removed and the water could run freely after a period where the screen had become blocked.

I don't agree that the defense stops because they think the jury won't be convinced. They do everything they can to show that there are other probable or MORE probable explanations. Anglo went over that in the Galati appeal dealing with circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution DID NOT have to prove it was blood. They would have loved to have had a positive TMB test but they didn't need it for the first trial.

Had the defense been able to show that they used shampoo with jojobo and jojobo would light up Luminol they would have done it. If Amanda remembered a rush of red water coming out I think she would have mentioned it. If after leaving the cottage for a couple of months the defense experts could have run it and tested it.

Anyway, there were Luminol prints and they were left somehow by someone and it makes me wonder.

 

[acbytesla]

Look I've said a hundred times or more that the ILE didn't prove their case. I've said here recently at a time when you were posting.

And yes I've turned on a faucet that wasn't used for a long period of time OR when the screen in the faucet or shower head was removed and the water could run freely after a period where the screen had become blocked.

I don't agree that the defense stops because they think the jury won't be convinced. They do everything they can to show that there are other probable or MORE probable explanations. Anglo went over that in the Galati appeal dealing with circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution DID NOT have to prove it was blood. They would have loved to have had a positive TMB test but they didn't need it for the first trial.

Had the defense been able to show that they used shampoo with jojobo and jojobo would light up Luminol they would have done it. If Amanda remembered a rush of red water coming out I think she would have mentioned it. If after leaving the cottage for a couple of months the defense experts could have run it and tested it.

Anyway, there were Luminol prints and they were left somehow by someone and it makes me wonder.

Please Grinder,

I am not attacking you. I also know you believe in the kids innocence. This is just an intellectual conversation "discussing the case". That is all.

But we have to agree to disagree about the defense's role in determining the nature of the substance. The fact is the Luminol footprints offer ZERO probative value. Hellman essentially said the same thing and even Galati did not argue this point in his appeal. Frankly, in my opinion it was WRONG for Massei to even allow this evidence in the trial. My guess is that a US judge would have prohibited the introduction of this evidence as it could possibly taint the jury.

 

[codyjuneau]

....
Andrea Vogt wrote, “'There are good guarantees and bad guarantees in the system,' explained [Italian legal scholar Stefano] Maffei….For example, Maffei said, Italian attorneys' primary job for decades has been to try to exploit the rules of procedure and evidence to delay long enough for the statute of limitations to be reached and the case to be dismissed.

Wow, thank you halides! I finally 'get' Machi. He's a practising obfuscator.

 

[Supernaut]

Anglo,

I'm sorry about the Henry VI quote - I thought I was being clever. I was just being a prick.

You keep keeping on, my friend.

 

[anglolawyer]

Good job Anglo, Reading Galati's appeal demonstrates why I hate lawyers. With the exception of present company of course. Out of curiosity Anglo, do lawyers try and write just to confuse the rest of us? Do they always have to be so ponderous??

I can see why you get that impression. The problem lies in the fact that precision is required, is difficult to achieve and some of us are not very good at achieving it, so a lot of what you read is crap but sometimes you maybe need to know a little law to see it.

I have only started reading Galati now and I have already spotted two problems which I have mentioned here (see below) and I know I will find more as I read on. There is a simple reason for this: A & R did not commit the murder. At some point this reality presents an insurmountable obstacle even to the best lawyer (in fact more to the best than the worst). You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Plus, Italy does the legalistic BS in spades as a cultural thing. English legal opinions and arguments look quite different: still complicated sometimes but less philosophical.

The two errors so far detected are:

Galati himself commits petitio principii in his discussion of Curatolo after an extended lecture on the subject, and

Galati deals with luminol by completely ignoring TMB, which, to me, is just ridiculous. I doubt any decent lawyer would ever do that here and it's against the rules of the profession to deliberately make bad points.

A third one might be that he says Amanda did not become a suspect until 5.45.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo,

I'm sorry about the Henry VI quote - I thought I was being clever. I was just being a prick.

You keep keeping on, my friend.

Supernaut - no problem at all. You cannot possibly think of anything bad to say about my profession that I don't already think. There is plenty not to like about the law and I love lawyer jokes, so fear ye not. Anyhow, what you said was nothing compared to Grinder's below the belt remark about finding a lawyer too good for this world. Just wait 'til I catch up with him

 

[anglolawyer]

Please Grinder,

I am not attacking you. I also know you believe in the kids innocence. This is just an intellectual conversation "discussing the case". That is all.

But we have to agree to disagree about the defense's role in determining the nature of the substance. The fact is the Luminol footprints offer ZERO probative value. Hellman essentially said the same thing and even Galati did not argue this point in his appeal. Frankly, in my opinion it was WRONG for Massei to even allow this evidence in the trial. My guess is that a US judge would have prohibited the introduction of this evidence as it could possibly taint the jury.

Hmm, not so sure about the last bit acbytesla. There have been a few cases I think where a luminol test was sufficient. I am trying to remember one I was reading about the other day in which part of the evidence consisted of a fine spray of 'blood' on the dash of a car which eventually turned out not to be blood at all and to have been applied during manufacture. And they only found out when someone noticed the same spray on another model. Can you believe that? Oh wait, it was Lindy Chamberlain.

A great thing I have learned in these pages and elsewhere is to be much more critical of the forensic science. The US offers plenty of examples of poor work and poor thinking in this field.

 

[acbytesla]

I can see why you get that impression. The problem lies in the fact that precision is required, is difficult to achieve and some of us are not very good at achieving it, so a lot of what you read is crap but sometimes you maybe need to know a little law to see it.

I have only started reading Galati now and I have already spotted two problems which I have mentioned here (see below) and I know I will find more as I read on. There is a simple reason for this: A & R did not commit the murder. At some point this reality presents an insurmountable obstacle even to the best lawyer (in fact more to the best than the worst). You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Plus, Italy does the legalistic BS in spades as a cultural thing. English legal opinions and arguments look quite different: still complicated sometimes but less philosophical.

The two errors so far detected are:

Galati himself commits petitio principii in his discussion of Curatolo after an extended lecture on the subject, and

Galati deals with luminol by completely ignoring TMB, which, to me, is just ridiculous. I doubt any decent lawyer would ever do that here and it's against the rules of the profession to deliberately make bad points.

A third one might be that he says Amanda did not become a suspect until 5.45.

I understand that we all have to do what we have to do. But prosecutors have the discretion in the US to press or not to press charges or appeal or not to appeal. I don't know if prosecutors in Italy have the same discretion. But if they do, there is no excuse for the prosecution, or the appeal.

Your point on the Luminol/TMB is spot on. I wish we had an American lawyer commenting. I am under the impression that in the US, lawyers would be able to examine the evidence before the trial and the "ask" the court to suppress evidence based on a number of factors. I'm convinced that a judge would be suppress any Luminol evidence that tested negative for TMB. But I don't know for sure. It seems as if it unfairly influences the jury.

 

[acbytesla]

Hmm, not so sure about the last bit acbytesla. There have been a few cases I think where a luminol test was sufficient. I am trying to remember one I was reading about the other day in which part of the evidence consisted of a fine spray of 'blood' on the dash of a car which eventually turned out not to be blood at all and to have been applied during manufacture. And they only found out when someone noticed the same spray on another model. Can you believe that? Oh wait, it was Lindy Chamberlain.

A great thing I have learned in these pages and elsewhere is to be much more critical of the forensic science. The US offers plenty of examples of poor work and poor thinking in this field.

Anglo, the problem in the US is that it really depends on the courtroom and the quality of the defense team. I believe that a competent attorney would "ask" the court to suppress the Luminol evidence based on the negative TMB tests. It would then be up to the presiding judge. He might admit it, but then that would be grounds for an appeal.

But of course, I'm just speculating.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo, the problem in the US is that it really depends on the courtroom and the quality of the defense team. I believe that a competent attorney would "ask" the court to suppress the Luminol evidence based on the negative TMB tests. It would then be up to the presiding judge. He might admit it, but then that would be grounds for an appeal.

But of course, I'm just speculating.

What you say sounds about right to me. It is inevitable that much of the argument in a system in which the finders of fact are laypeople will revolve around questions of admissibility. I assume Italy would say the inclusion of trained judges among the fact finders diminishes this element.

Of course, not only is Galati running this bad point on luminol (and the fact he is doing so speaks volumes) but, quite apart from that, there is the small detail that the Massei court was falsely told there were no TMB tests. Don't need to be a lawyer to have a view on that.

ETA and just to follow that up, remember the extract from Hellman I quoted

Dr. Stefanoni herself ... clarified ... a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.

What are the implications of that for the integrity of the prosecution?

 

[Kaosium]

The prosecution DID NOT have to prove it was blood. They would have loved to have had a positive TMB test but they didn't need it for the first trial.

However it's (yet another) an excellent example of the forensic sophistry they engaged in, and illustrates how the whole case is a lie and the chief liars were Mignini and Stefanoni. You claim they didn't have to prove it was blood, but they not only had the negative TMBs they also failed even to attempt (to our knowledge) a confirmation test, which is not as difficult as it sounds. Here's how one of them works:

They stick (inject) a poor little bunny with human blood. Since the human blood doesn't belong there, the bunny's body creates antibodies to go after the antigens in the human blood. They then butcher the poor little bunny and scoop out the anti-bodies which they collect and put into a gel in a lab dish with the sample they want to test. If the substance they are testing is human blood, the anti-bodies will react to the tested substance and they'll know it's human blood. Note that they'll have the testing substance ready as it's made by big bio-corporations so no bunnies are butchered on site anymore, and that example comes from Australia where they dun much like bunnies as when introduced they overran Oz and are thought to be not unlike a plague of vermin; the substance used in Italy may be much kinder and gentler to bunnies.

Had the defense been able to show that they used shampoo with jojobo and jojobo would light up Luminol they would have done it. If Amanda remembered a rush of red water coming out I think she would have mentioned it. If after leaving the cottage for a couple of months the defense experts could have run it and tested it.

Anyway, there were Luminol prints and they were left somehow by someone and it makes me wonder.

About what? The one thing you know they are not is human blood, it was only the forensic sophistry of the prosecution (and outright lies plus hiding the negatives) that ever allowed anyone to think they were. Lots of things light up luminol, once tested negative for blood that's one thing you know it's not. Oh, and pretending the concentration was between the sensitivity threshold of luminol and TMB doesn't work either because the pictures wouldn't have glowed so nice and bright for the cameras if there was barely a trace presence like they pretended was possible once they'd been busted for hiding the TMB negatives.

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry to butt in but there is the small matter of the law:


and I trust that's all clear.

Anyway, tucked in there is that rule about circumstantial evidence having to be

- of sufficient weight (able to withstand objection)
- precise (not to be susceptible of different interpretation) and
- concordant (not conflicting with other evidence)

The luminol fails on all three counts and it would only have to fail on one to be unusable under Italian law. Negative TMB knocks it out. Hellman records that

Professor Tagliabracci, specified, without being refuted* (hearing of July 18 2009, p. 174), that the tetramethylbenzedine (TMB) test is very sensitive, so much as to give a positive result even with only five red blood cells present. Dr. Stefanoni herself ... clarified ... a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.

Galati has nothing to say about this. It's game over on luminol and Hellman is entitled to conclude:

... on this subject: the footprints in question, in the opinion of this Court, have no evidentiary [indiziario] value against Amanda Knox.

* 'contradicted' would be a better word here.

Just wanted to compliment you on this wonderful post and make sure no one missed every little nuance of it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Just wanted to compliment you on this wonderful post and make sure no one missed every little nuance of it.

Thanks Kaosium. One nuance, which is the wrong word since it's a scream-out fact, is that, on the evidence, the luminol did not reveal blood. That fact is completely clearly established by the evidence Hellman referred to. Hellman, no matter what conspiracies or agendas you conjure up, was obliged to hold the luminol did not reveal blood. That being so, WTF is Galati doing still running it? I commend folks to read that section of the appeal with this thought in mind.