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

[CoulsdonUK]

That will be a short post.

A career in stand-up comedy awaits you.

 

[Didaktylos]

Couldson - a word to the wise. What you have done is the equivalent of quoting Erich von Daniken as an authority on archaeology.

 

[acbytesla]

Unless I have been misunderstanding everything here (quite possible) TMB is also presumptive. It can tell you something is not blood but it can't tell you what it is. For that you need a confirmatory test. If that's wrong I'm blowing my brains out.

No you're right anglo, they are both presumptive field tests. There was no confirmatory test in the lab, and maybe that is what Chris meant.

My impression is that a tech might use TMB directly on a substance that appears to be blood, but luminol allows one to see residue left over that is invisible with the naked eye. In that case, Luminol is used first and then TMB after and if both offers a positive result, further more definitive tests are made in the lab.

Chris???

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Couldson - a word to the wise. What you have done is the equivalent of quoting Erich von Daniken as an authority on archaeology.

I assume you are referring to the article? Is it inaccurate, wasn’t the case against Mignini in Florence nullified?

 

[Grinder]

While you do offer an innocent explanation how the blood was transferred to the floor, how do you come to this conclusion given the NEGATIVE results of the TMB? That doesn't sound logical or reasonable to me.

As for Stefanoni, you don't think she reviewed her own notes before her testimony? You're arguing that she was incompetent instead of corrupt. Granted, I can't prove she was corrupt, but I don't buy that she didn't remember. A person in her position is paid to be thorough.

Oh oh, now you will be charged for slander.

As I explained earlier too much Luminol was applied which even in normal amounts is known to affect later tests. I believe either the TMB test was not done correctly (muffed) or the Luminol had destroyed the sample for testing.

The sample in F's room might have been transported there by the people in the cottage the morning of the 2nd or even later by the CSI.

 

[Grinder]

My post was merely pointing out that not everyone thinks of Mignini as the devil especially in Italy, not to mention the possible difficulties for Raffaele relating to passages from his book.

Not everyone in Iraq thought Saddam was evil. He was taken to trial by real prosecutors and found guilty by real judges.

Anyway to counter some the allegations here attributed to Mignini actions I thought it was worthwhile pointing out that everything related to the Monster of Florence charges, I quote once more ” In fact they nullified the whole trial, not only the previous one in terms of judgment, but also the preliminary hearing, and the indictment; and even the request of indictment.”

Well I read that the appellate court ruled that the first court didn't have jurisdiction because the people charging him were from that jurisdiction so another venue should have been used and they referred it to another jurisdiction.

The appellate court did not rule on the substance of the charges unlike Hellmann in the Kercher murder trial. Mignini was only saved by a technicality.

I didn't follow where your translation came from but if it was by Yummi or someone associated with TJMK I wouldn't trust it.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not part of the hyperbole, accusations and counter accustions that ebbs and flows between the warring web sites or the individuals who administer them. Nonetheless, it is an alternative view and it does provide citations from Italian media.

I found the comments relating to the charges and first level trial of the Monster of Florence case against Giuttari and Mignini; and I quote “In fact they nullified the whole trial, not only the previous one in terms of judgment, but also the preliminary hearing, and the indictment; and even the request of indictment. “
Were you aware of these developments with Monster of Florence?

Do you have any other views of the actual article?

Not really, no.

My mind wanders and I hope you forgive me. I used to work in the same office as prosecutors, me as a volunteer and an underling doing accompaniment with victims of crime under the direction of the prosecutors' office.

My views of Mignini are based mainly by the respect gained about them seeing them deal day to day with issues. So that makes me heavily biased in favour of prosecutors.

And so with no proof whatsoever, I take the whole schmear against Mignini and compare. None of them would have dropped their self respect to the level that Mignini, particularly, did. The production of the obscene against-the-evidence cartoon shown in court, about which Mignini and Comodi are being audited and perhaps (and I agree, it's only a perhaps) going to be held accountable...

..... and you have followed this case enough to anticipate exactly what I am going to add. So I won't insult you with a long diatribe. But the "she-devil stuff".... well, I think of the prosecutors I worked under and think of Mignini and think of self-respect.

Each and every one of them would enjoy and value their work being held up to the light of day. There actually do not need to be laws concerning the protection of the accused's right to counsel and the right to have interrogations recorded with these guys and gals, because they'd have done that anyways - they're the first to understand how those rights not only protect the accused (which they have no particular reason to want to demonize outside of the crime alleged), but those rights protect the very fabric of a society which calls itself civilized.

I worked with people who would be fair not because of a law, but just because. Mignini - he quoted the law at interrogation and then proceeded to disobey it. Who am I to respect out of this?

I think it's my position that the reason why I don't join in to the headlong "defense of Mignini" that seems to be escalating just prior to the SC ruling, because I have too much respect for the job prosecutors do on our behalf, too much so to want to defend the likes of Mignini.

It's interesting - and I'm not accusing you of it and if you want to know why I'll cover that later - that this "defend Mignini" is coming up at this time. Me, I think he's toast and he knows it. He extortion attempt failed. He could always claim that he'd caught the perp, Rudy is in jail, but his extortion attempt against Sollecito and Knox failed. He fully expected one or both of them to cop a plea. They didn't. Esp. Raffaele, he was simply going to tell the truth, even if he had to spent 25 years with, "rapists and sodomizers" as Mignini put it to him.

What was Mignini's response as the case against those two fell apart. He admitted to Drew Griffin of CNN, "perhaps Amanda was out in the hall." And yet even as he joined in with moving Amanda farther and farther from the scene, at the appeals' trial he requested a full life term for Amanda, and that she spend months in solitary as punishment.

This is not the character of prosecutors I respect, or who I worked under.

So go ahead, defend Mignini. Apply the double standard that Mignini now only stands accused by turning around and saying that mere accusations against others should be weighted to their guilt.

I get that.

I just find it interesting that this is now not about two innocents anymore, thank the Lord above, it's about Mignini who somehow needs defending - as we approach March 25.

That's me. That's where my mind goes. I apologize, I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, which I hope you appreciate.

 

[Bill Williams]

For peer reviewed literature on the nature of the prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, please see:

http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0028/ea0028se1.6.htm

This is offered to demonstrate that those of us who think there is "something seriously wrong with Mignini" are not talking through our hats.

Unlike Peter Quennell who has yet to produce the psychopathological analysis he claims exists to buttress a vilification of Knox and Sollecito, or unlike a website administer who said that he had a copy of the incriminating bleach receipt - and we're supposed to continue vilifying Knox and Sollecito simply on his word he has it!......

There is actual, peer reviewed stuff about Mignini....

Caution. Peer review does not necessarily mean it is correct. But it does mean that the author subjected himself to transparency and potential criticism of peers.

Lessee..... how does Mr. Mignini stack up against that? After March 25, we will see.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh oh, now you will be charged for slander.

As I explained earlier too much Luminol was applied which even in normal amounts is known to affect later tests. I believe either the TMB test was not done correctly (muffed) or the Luminol had destroyed the sample for testing.

The sample in F's room might have been transported there by the people in the cottage the morning of the 2nd or even later by the CSI.

There is no evidence that too much Luminol would cause TMB to provide a negative result and given that no definitive lab tests were performed, don't you think that you cannot reasonably come to the conclusion that it is blood.

While I guess there is a very small possibility that it is blood, but from a legal perspective, I would definitely rule out that it was blood.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Anglolawyer\Grinder

Interesting I read the whole masonic thing as Mignini was not part of it and that the Monster in Florence case against him arose because of regional politics in the judiciary. If he were Mr Big in the local masonry I wonder how “they/he” allowed Hellmann and Zanetti to preside.

Nobody thinks Mignini is "Mr. Big in the local masonry." Do you know anything at all about this subject? Do you understand the outlines of the Narducci case, the nature of the MOF murders, the theory by which Mignini tied them together, and how he and the police detective came to face criminal charges?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What if the TMB had not been performed.

I found this line a little curious Chris. It is not that there wasn't a confirmatory test, but that the confirmatory test proved to be negative.

What would your perspective be if Luminol only was applied and no other presumptive tests were performed?

acbytesla,

Both TMB and luminol are presumptive, but TMB or the Kastle-Meyer test sometimes are used following a positive luminol result. Only the crystal tests and the antibody tests are confirmatory. IIRC there may be some new tests being developed that are based on messenger RNA, but I don't think that they are widely used yet. If no TMB were performed, then the luminol result by itself means that blood might be present. It is difficult for me to put a percentage on it.

As long as we are discussing blood tests, I would also like to point out that the negative DNA result for some of the luminol-positive areas reduces slightly the chance that those areas are blood.

 

[Grinder]

There is no evidence that too much Luminol would cause TMB to provide a negative result and given that no definitive lab tests were performed, don't you think that you cannot reasonably come to the conclusion that it is blood.

While I guess there is a very small possibility that it is blood, but from a legal perspective, I would definitely rule out that it was blood.

What do you mean there is no evidence that Luminol would cause TMB to be negative when positive? What test are impacted by Luminol? Not DNA so much.

Luminol's presence may prevent other tests from being performed on a piece of evidence. However, it has been shown that DNA can be successfully extracted from samples treated with luminol reagent

What tests do you think they are referring to?

I'm not making the legal case. How often must I repeat that the ICSI blew it. They did a shoddy job. Regardless the prints were made by some substance and I haven't seen any evidence of what that might have been.

If they weren't caused as I described it makes no sense that there were only right feet and that they were found only were they were.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol and TMB at the scene

No you're right anglo, they are both presumptive field tests. There was no confirmatory test in the lab, and maybe that is what Chris meant.

My impression is that a tech might use TMB directly on a substance that appears to be blood, but luminol allows one to see residue left over that is invisible with the naked eye. In that case, Luminol is used first and then TMB after and if both offers a positive result, further more definitive tests are made in the lab.

Chris???

acbytesla,

That is pretty much right, although TMB can also be used in the lab (Stefanoni used it on the knife, for example). The literature is a little bit slim on the question of what to do after a positive luminol, followed by a negative TMB. However, I have heard it said that confirmatory testing would usually be done when both were positive. to avoid overwhelming the forensic lab with too many samples.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

maybe the overapplication would affect subsequent tests

As I explained earlier too much Luminol was applied which even in normal amounts is known to affect later tests. I believe either the TMB test was not done correctly (muffed) or the Luminol had destroyed the sample for testing.

Grinder,

You did not cite anything that showed an interference, and I cited one source to the contrary in a previous message today. However, I will grant that the luminol was overapplied and that the overapplication raises some uncertainty on this question. Luminol testing is done at high pH, and it is conceivable that this would have an effect. I would need some time to check further into the plausibility of this hypothesis.
EDT
I see a sentence or two in italics in one of your messages on this subject. What is the citation for that passage?

 

[acbytesla]

What do you mean there is no evidence that Luminol would cause TMB to be negative when positive? What test are impacted by Luminol? Not DNA so much.

Luminol's presence may prevent other tests from being performed on a piece of evidence. However, it has been shown that DNA can be successfully extracted from samples treated with luminol reagent

What tests do you think they are referring to?

I'm not making the legal case. How often must I repeat that the ICSI blew it. They did a shoddy job. Regardless the prints were made by some substance and I haven't seen any evidence of what that might have been.

If they weren't caused as I described it makes no sense that there were only right feet and that they were found only were they were.

Relax Grinder, we're just talking. I've read that Luminol may have an effect on DNA testing although it does not universally preclude pulling a DNA sample from areas treated with Luminol. I have yet to read that it inhibits positive results from TMB. Chris is looking in to this.

I approach this from a different perspective than you do. The negative TMB result eliminates my even thinking that it could be blood. Now if Stefanoni had performed the very definitive lab tests and obtained a positive result I would be open to your narrative.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol, TMB, and washing

Relax Grinder, we're just talking. I've read that Luminol may have an effect on DNA testing although it does not universally preclude pulling a DNA sample from areas treated with Luminol. I have yet to read that it inhibits positive results from TMB. Chris is looking in to this.

For unwashed surfaces luminol does not inhibit a TMB test, according to Table 1 of the paper I cited earlier today (Gross et al., 1999). For washed surfaces, it might, depending on the type of washing and on the surface itself.

 

[Grinder]

I'm relaxed. I can't find anything definitive on affects after over application of Luminol.

Generally Luminol doesn't seem to impact it, not withstanding the Wiki piece.

I have no confidence that that ISCI did the TMB correctly.

I would like a reasonable explanation for the footprints, whether necessary for acquittal or not.

 

[Grinder]

I'm relaxed. I can't find anything definitive on affects after over application of Luminol.

Generally Luminol doesn't seem to impact it, not withstanding the Wiki piece.

I have no confidence that that ISCI did the TMB correctly.

I would like a reasonable explanation for the footprints, whether necessary for acquittal or not.

 

[Supernaut]

The codes of the Kingdom of Sardinia in civil and penal affairs were extended to the whole of Italy when Italy was unified in the mid-19th century. The revised 1990 penal code replaced the old ‘inquisitory’ system with an accusatory system similar to that of common-law countries.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Interesting.

In "The Monster of Florence", Doug Preston discusses the wave of migration from Sardinia into the mainland in the 1960's. These migrants brought with them their "traditions", including their criminal ones, which apparently included casual kidnap and ransom.

I've wondered if this culture of 'kidnap/ransom' is now ingrained in Italy, and that it might relate to what happened to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

EDIT >> research the kidnapping of Jean Paul Getty III in 1973, and get a load of the Getty "patriarch's" cynicism. Psycopathic bastard.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm relaxed. I can't find anything definitive on affects after over application of Luminol.

Generally Luminol doesn't seem to impact it, not withstanding the Wiki piece.

I have no confidence that that ISCI did the TMB correctly.

I would like a reasonable explanation for the footprints, whether necessary for acquittal or not.

How difficult do you think performing a TMB test is Grinder? From my understanding, you apply TMB to a cotton swab and rub it against the area where you think there might be blood and wait to see if it reacts (changes color). If it doesn't, the result is negative. Pretty damn simple if you ask me. How do they screw that up?

Not that you would put it past this group.