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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What clean-up?

I have a brother and a coupla sisters that I grew up with.
Being the oldest, well I often had to, whether I liked to or wanted to, help, you might say, clean up when my younger siblings colored the walls with crayons or made a mess on the floor.

As such,
I've cleaned up alot.
As I'm sure you who are parents have also done too, right?

A room that is cleaned up will show smears. A lot of them.
No if, ands, or buts.

As this pic on the right, from FS's Old Perugia Shock shows.

Smears. Big time!


Any blood clean-up that occurred in Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher's flat would have shown bloody smears.

There are none.

There was no significent clean-up done after Miss Meredith Kercher was knifed to death!
And Rudy Guede went out dancing afterwards before skipping town to run+hide in Germany...
 
Bill Williams said:

Screen capture from part 2.
Click to expand...



So anyway... We have Mignini at a lecture or whatever about Satan and a picture of AK behind him. Certainly a bad photo op as viewed thru the innocenters' eyes. It certainly brings the whole Satan thing to forefront. Didn't Mach say that you couldn't find references in italian media to that? I may be wrong ahout that, pls correct.

And if he is supposedly there to deny this with respect to AK etc, is that the only reason he is there? It sure looks like someone thinks there is an association given all AK photos.
 
How does a member of the audience get invited up to sit with the panel on the stage,then give two long speeches,Mr Mignini must be a well respected contributor to satanic murder discussions in Italy
 
moije2 said:
So anyway... We have Mignini at a lecture or whatever about Satan and a picture of AK behind him. Certainly a bad photo op as viewed thru the innocenters' eyes. It certainly brings the whole Satan thing to forefront. Didn't Mach say that you couldn't find references in italian media to that? I may be wrong ahout that, pls correct.

And if he is supposedly there to deny this with respect to AK etc, is that the only reason he is there? It sure looks like someone thinks there is an association given all AK photos.
Click to expand...

The "tagliagole libero" below Amanda means, "cutthroats free." So at the very least, Mignini speaks at a conference about Satanism and the law, says that one has to always keep an open mind about Satanism, although to be fair he also says that facts should decide cases.
 
billyryan said:
How does a member of the audience get invited up to sit with the panel on the stage,then give two long speeches,Mr Mignini must be a well respected contributor to satanic murder discussions in Italy
Click to expand...

Others are invited, but Mignini is the only one allowed to stay! Good catch!
 
What scares me...

Ampulla of Vater said:
Are you INSANE??? :eek:
Click to expand...

Hi Ampulla of Vater,
I'm much more fearfull of any Italian Police Chief who would lie to a Court of Law
than I am of worried about the danger presented by the wildlife inhabiting the waters off Los Angeles...
:)

Here's another cute shot of a different GWS swimming next to me last week:

Some of the videos I've shot are kinda cool too...


But let's get back to Chief Detective Inspector Michele Battistelli.
Do you folks believe that he DID NOT enter Miss Kercher's bedroom to check and see if she was alive still?

What,
did the police officer wait in the hallway and just stare at that foot stickin' out from under the duvet after he kicked everyone outta the apartment?

Or did he enter the bedroom of Meredith Kercher?

If so,
why lie about it in court a year later when testifying in front of Judge Massei?
Hmmmm...

Something just doesn't make sense to me,
a dude who has also had to testify in front of a Judge and Jury of strangers,
in my own civil rape trial...

Anyways,
I'll ponder this some more tonight as I drink some whiskey with my brother-in-law. Have a good weekend ya'all,
RW
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
The "tagliagole libero" below Amanda means, "cutthroats free." So at the very least, Mignini speaks at a conference about Satanism and the law, says that one has to always keep an open mind about Satanism, although to be fair he also says that facts should decide cases.
Click to expand...

That's pretty cheesy "cutthroats free", isn't it?

Maybe stupid people get promoted a lot in Italy, like Edgardo Giobbi, Migninni, and Napoleoni's.

Migninni and his satanic obsessive interest in it is possibly more acceptable in Italy, you think?

Micheli tossed out the satanic ideals in his report, why he felt that need to mention it would come from somewhere. Migninni was the prosecution so I would assume he was referring to Migninni.

Nov 6 will be interesting, so far the prosecution has had two losing appeal points, the knife and the convict.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Ampulla of Vater,
I'm much more fearfull of any Italian Police Chief who would lie to a Court of Law
than I am of worried about the danger presented by the wildlife inhabiting the waters off Los Angeles...
:)

Here's another cute shot of a different GWS swimming next to me last week:
[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img22/1816/oobi.jpg[/qimg]
Some of the videos I've shot are kinda cool too...


But let's get back to Chief Detective Inspector Michele Battistelli.
Do you folks believe that he DID NOT enter Miss Kercher's bedroom to check and see if she was alive still?

What,
did the police officer wait in the hallway and just stare at that foot stickin' out from under the duvet after he kicked everyone outta the apartment?

Or did he enter the bedroom of Meredith Kercher?

If so,
why lie about it in court a year later when testifying in front of Judge Massei?
Hmmmm...

Something just doesn't make sense to me,
a dude who has also had to testify in front of a Judge and Jury of strangers,
in my own civil rape trial...

Anyways,
I'll ponder this some more tonight as I drink some whiskey with my brother-in-law. Have a good weekend ya'all,
RW
Click to expand...

Be careful out there, that wet suit makes you look like a tasty seal.
 
JREF2010 said:
That's pretty cheesy "cutthroats free", isn't it?

Maybe stupid people get promoted a lot in Italy, like Edgardo Giobbi, Migninni, and Napoleoni's.

Migninni and his satanic obsessive interest in it is possibly more acceptable in Italy, you think?

Micheli tossed out the satanic ideals in his report, why he felt that need to mention it would come from somewhere. Migninni was the prosecution so I would assume he was referring to Migninni.

Nov 6 will be interesting, so far the prosecution has had two losing appeal points, the knife and the convict.
Click to expand...

It's the good old boy network. Who you know trumps what you know more often than I care to think about.
 
davefoc said:
Hi Machiavelli,
I was under the impression that TMB was a presumptive test for blood. As I understand it, that means that if the result is positive then the sample might contain blood but if it is negative the doesn't contain blood at a sufficient concentration to trigger a positive TMB reaction.
Click to expand...

Yes this is the basic principle.
My understanding is: both Luminol and TMB are agents in the same kind of chamical reaction, and they both react with substances containing a heme, that is a cluster/precursor contained in hemoglobine and in some vegetable enzymes (albeit it's not identical). My understanding is that the heme acts as a catalyzer of the reaction that would produce colour/luminescence, basically an oxidation reaction (due to the presence of a peroxidase dilution mixed with TMB/Luminol as a second chemical substance, for Luminol it's a solution).

A catalyzing reaction - actually not identical, but different for its time lasting and wavelenght for Luminol - can be produced by few other 'common' substances, such as chlorine and some metal salts. (however chlorine in water dilution is proven volatile, literature finds it would be detected by presumptive blood tests only for a period of a few hours - never beyond 18-24 hours).


Is your claim here that there might have been blood in the samples because the concentration was too low for a positive TMB test?
Click to expand...

As for the Luminol prints, this is more than likely.

Is that possible if there is a positive luminal result?
Click to expand...

Literature says this is possible after a positive luminol result. Because Luminol is - itself - 10 times more sensitive than TMB. But the use of TMB is also indirect (it is a moist swab (on a strip) what is tested, or a sample, not the stain itself; the moist strip is factually a mass of solvent that causes dilution of the original stain, and TMB in the swab would only react with this final dilution, not with the original stain).

Even if this is theoretically possible what probative value would a negative TMB result have with regards to a trial?
Click to expand...

It must be assessed. Basically, in my opinion it depends on the existence of an alternative hypotheses for the substance, and/or for an alternative dynamic for how the stain was produced.

Wouldn't it just be a non informative result? Something that might have been blood was found but the concentration was too low to determine if it was blood or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, if this was the only piece of information, itself, it would be insufficient information. I mean, if it was a random otherwise meaningless stain.
But if the stain has the shape of human foot and if the distribution of the barefoot prints is not explained by a random normal activity, and if there are other identical footprints actually proven to be in diluted blood, which also have identical peculiarities (isolated, not part of a trail, diluted/washed by water, and even produced by the same person), and one of the luminol stain yields DNA suspect+victim and another one corresponds to a washed up former print originally belonging to the Rudy Guede trail, and when you don't have any other plausible substance in the apartment, or even that you can think about, as plausible alternative ... If you happen to have these and other further pieces of information as we in fact have, well in this event the assessment should be "holistic", as the Supreme Court suggest.

You mentioned that the literature does not support Kaosum's claims. Could you cite which literature that is? I looked briefly and all I found was information about the possibility of false positives with TMB testing, false negatives were only discussed with regards to the required concentration of blood to get a positive result.
Click to expand...

Yes false negatives are a usually matter of concentration. As far as I know.
A previous test (like a Luminol test) occasionally might negatively influence the outcome of a further TMB test, because further dilutes the stain (and maybe "uses" the catalyzing substance).
I don't know if there are other factors beyond concentration (old stain, dry oxidized, etc.) there might be a literature about them but I don't know.
Concentration is anyway a main sure factor.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Yes this is the basic principle.
My understanding is: both Luminol and TMB are agents in the same kind of chamical reaction, and they both react with substances containing a heme, that is a cluster/precursor contained in hemoglobine and in some vegetable enzymes (albeit it's not identical). My understanding is that the heme acts as a catalyzer of the reaction that would produce colour/luminescence, basically an oxidation reaction (due to the presence of a peroxidase dilution mixed with TMB/Luminol as a second chemical substance, for Luminol it's a solution).
Click to expand...

Thanks for coming online Mach to demonstrate what you don't know.

Although Luminol is more sensitive than TMB, TMB can detect blood that has been diluted up to 10,000-fold.

Arguing that negative TMB results in the Kercher case can be ascribed to this difference in sensitivity is absurd. From the View from Wilmington

From the View from Wilmington

"There are several reasons to reject this explanation. First, if it were the only explanation for TMB giving a negative result, no forensic personnel would ever use TMB after using luminol: A negative result would not rule out the presence of blood, yet a positive result would still require a confirmatory test afterwards. Second, the window of dilution factors for which one would expect a positive luminol reaction but a negative TMB reaction is relatively small. Third, if one did have a sample which fell into this range, the luminol response would be weak, whereas Colonel Garofano remarked upon the sheer luminosity* of the footprints in the book Darkness Descending. A study by Bilous and coworkers showed that the maximum intensity of light emitted fell with decreasing concentration of blood (see Table 1).

With respect to the luminol-positive/TMB-negative/DNA-negative areas, I asked the authors of a recent study on the forensics of body fluid identification for their interpretation. Drs. Virkler and Lednev wrote, “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.

Were the luminol-positive areas related to the crime?
The footprints in the hallway are all right feet images** and do not form a trail. No reference footprints were taken from anyone except Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudi, nor can the prints be dated. Yet Judge Massei regards the prints as being made in blood. He said (p. 284 in the English translation of the Massei Motivations Report), “In this regard, one cannot simply disregard the fact that the bloodstains were undeniably abundant in Meredith’s room, from which easily, or indeed inevitably, they must have been exported to other parts of the house by anyone who, coming out of Meredith’s room, went into these other parts.” In some respects this line of reasoning is similar to Dr. Stefanoni’s argument in front of Judge Micheli during the pretrial, as reported in Candace Dempsey’s blog, Let's Talk About True Crime. This argument is extremely poor. It suggests that the footprints should form a continuous trail of right and left footprints away from Meredith’s room, contrary to fact. It treats luminol as if it were a confirmatory test for blood, and it ignores the negative TMB testing that was done on at least some of the luminol-positive areas.

Finally, two other facts lead one to question whether the luminol-positive spots are related to the crime. One is that the luminol data were collected on December 18, not in early November right after the crime but rather after the police had tossed the crime scene. This means that law enforcement personnel may have tracked luminol-positive material into Filomena’s room, for example. Two is that the police found many luminol-positive areas in Sollecito’s flat. There is no reason to associate any of these regions with the murder, and Sarah Gino’s testimony suggests that luminol-positive areas are not uncommon in forensic investigations.

”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Yes this is the basic principle.
My understanding is: both Luminol and TMB are agents in the same kind of chamical reaction, and they both react with substances containing a heme, that is a cluster/precursor contained in hemoglobine and in some vegetable enzymes (albeit it's not identical). My understanding is that the heme acts as a catalyzer of the reaction that would produce colour/luminescence, basically an oxidation reaction (due to the presence of a peroxidase dilution mixed with TMB/Luminol as a second chemical substance, for Luminol it's a solution).

A catalyzing reaction - actually not identical, but different for its time lasting and wavelenght for Luminol - can be produced by few other 'common' substances, such as chlorine and some metal salts. (however chlorine in water dilution is proven volatile, literature finds it would be detected by presumptive blood tests only for a period of a few hours - never beyond 18-24 hours).




As for the Luminol prints, this is more than likely.



Literature says this is possible after a positive luminol result. Because Luminol is - itself - 10 times more sensitive than TMB. But the use of TMB is also indirect (it is a moist swab (on a strip) what is tested, or a sample, not the stain itself; the moist strip is factually a mass of solvent that causes dilution of the original stain, and TMB in the swab would only react with this final dilution, not with the original stain).



It must be assessed. Basically, in my opinion it depends on the existence of an alternative hypotheses for the substance, and/or for an alternative dynamic for how the stain was produced.



Yes, if this was the only piece of information, itself, it would be insufficient information. I mean, if it was a random otherwise meaningless stain.
But if the stain has the shape of human foot and if the distribution of the barefoot prints is not explained by a random normal activity, and if there are other identical footprints actually proven to be in diluted blood, which also have identical peculiarities (isolated, not part of a trail, diluted/washed by water, and even produced by the same person), and one of the luminol stain yields DNA suspect+victim and another one corresponds to a washed up former print originally belonging to the Rudy Guede trail, and when you don't have any other plausible substance in the apartment, or even that you can think about, as plausible alternative ... If you happen to have these and other further pieces of information as we in fact have, well in this event the assessment should be "holistic", as the Supreme Court suggest.



Yes false negatives are a usually matter of concentration. As far as I know.
A previous test (like a Luminol test) occasionally might negatively influence the outcome of a further TMB test, because further dilutes the stain (and maybe "uses" the catalyzing substance).
I don't know if there are other factors beyond concentration (old stain, dry oxidized, etc.) there might be a literature about them but I don't know.
Concentration is anyway a main sure factor.
Click to expand...

davefoc said:
Hi Machiavelli,
I was under the impression that TMB was a presumptive test for blood. As I understand it, that means that if the result is positive then the sample might contain blood but if it is negative the doesn't contain blood at a sufficient concentration to trigger a positive TMB reaction.

Is your claim here that there might have been blood in the samples because the concentration was too low for a positive TMB test? Is that possible if there is a positive luminal result? Even if this is theoretically possible what probative value would a negative TMB result have with regards to a trial? Wouldn't it just be a non informative result? Something that might have been blood was found but the concentration was too low to determine if it was blood or not.

You mentioned that the literature does not support Kaosum's claims. Could you cite which literature that is? I looked briefly and all I found was information about the possibility of false positives with TMB testing, false negatives were only discussed with regards to the required concentration of blood to get a positive result.
Click to expand...

Dave no literature supports any of Machs claims. You are correct. Luminol and TMB (Mach is wrong to suggest only the strip type TMB test btw) are both presumptive tests for blood. All normal investigations by competent CSI people use these two and in the following fashion. A luminol hit is retested with TMB. If negative with TMB the test is over. If positive then confirmatory tests are simple and available. Trust me I was a histologist in the most world renowned pathology building in the world. AFIP which is short for Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology is where every difficult case from any hospital or research center world wide comes to get the proper answers for the most difficult cases. As for blood and tissue work, AFIP wrote the book on histology.

To suggest that the sample is simply diluted blood and that is the reason for the negative TMB result is incorrect and closer to a lie than what is the truth about that. While statistically possible it is on the same line as entering the ocean and being bitten by a shark and then after surviving that bite but while waiting on the beach for the rescue helicopter to arrive then you are struck by lightning on a clear blue day...and then after surviving that you are placed into the chopper which crashes into the ocean shortly after take off and you are finally eaten by the same shark which originally bit you. All possible but not bloody (pun intended) likely.

In fact the Italians are using their repeated and transparent legal tactic to do a half azzed test and then fail to complete the exam per world standards and instead leave a error gap (a complete failure to do the required tests to confirm their soon to be exploited hypothesis) and to then exploit that self created gap to create an illusion that something is possible...no matter how unlikely.

In this particular instance...Positive luminol would be tested with TMB. In any case if they suspected blood despite these world accepted tests then it remains incumbent upon the Italian labs to prove their hypothesis with simple confirmatory tests...this is so freaking simple they could do this a hundred years or maybe far longer ago.

You stain the sample and look at it under a microscope is one basic idiot proof method.

But for Mach to suggest that the defense must prove this is not blood is insane. IT WAS NOT FROM BLOOD. I don't give a rats azz what caused the luminol reaction. If the prosecution wants to call it blood then they need to prove that and not simply state that. The science is completely against them. OTOH simple confirmatory tests were and are available then and now. I suggest the Italians like to leave things vague which makes them look like idiots but also which allows them to convict innocent persons because no one seems smart enough or perhaps courageous enough to question these moronic players.

Mach has no clue what he is speaking about in regard to these luminol hits. Just words,words, and more meaningless words that add up to nothing. And in fact to allude that the defense must reveal the source of the glow...OK Mach...its more likely to be turnip juice than blood but if you wish to prove blood then show the required test result...or else shut the hell up.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I laugh about all of this, because by the time I was 23, I had had more than 30 different partners. I was very promiscuous at that age. Yet everyone thought I was this geeky guy who never got laid. You can't judge a book by its cover.

Most people's sex lives are not what people think they are. I have known the most innocent looking girls that were wild and adventurous and wild looking girls that were prudish and uptight once you get down to it.
I have known religious girls who act priggish and even condemn others for their sexual antics, really get very wild when given the opportunity. The macho guy who you think is straight as an arrow, could just as easily be as gay as a picnic basket. And the effiminate guy that you are convinced is a poof is really a ladies man who can't get enough of the girls.

There's a scene in American Pie 2 where the "expert guy" explains that when a girl says she has been with 2 guys, you can multiply that number by 3. And the "expert girl" explains to her friend that when a guy says that he has been with 3 girls, that you can divide that number by 3.

People lie about their sexual encounters. That much I'm sure of. They are more concerned about how they are viewed, than they are about the truth.
Click to expand...

A blonde and a brunette are discussing their sexual encounters and the brunette comments that she recently had sex with a Brazilian. You slut states the blonde...how many is that?
 
Last edited:
Any blood clean-up that occurred in Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher's flat would have shown bloody smears.
Click to expand...

What's the pro-guilt lobby's answer to this? If Knox and Sollecito cleaned up their footprints, while being extremely careful for no reason I can understand to leave Guede's undisturbed, why are the Luminol footprints whole and intact?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom