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

[Bill Williams]

There are no "Satanic conferences", and there is nothing to say beyond what Mignini and the other guests said, which apparently you didn't listen to.

"Delitti & Misteri" is a mainstream magazine about crime and justice, not about Satanism. The guests even basically agreed that Satanism doesn't exist (they said that there was actually no satanic sect not even in the "Bestie di Satana" murders case).
The conference and speakers had a rationalist approach under all points of views.

Machiavelli - do you agree that Mignini commented in the video that Satanism can never really be ruled out in a crime investigation?

 

[acbytesla]

There were footprints of some sort found by the luminol. It is argued that the prints that are missing couldn't have been cleaned up because there would be smear marks or the glow of bleach (although the length of time they waited seemed to be a problem for bleach IIRC).

That would seem to mean that the prints, being of only one foot, must have been left with only one foot even if they were from another time than the murder night or the cleaning marks should be there as well.

I think we are on the same wavelength now. What is crystal clear to me is that these "prints" whatever they were, were allowed to dry and probably were from a substance that was naked to the eye and were never "cleaned".
From my perspective there is no way in hell, they came from the murder. Probably were made before the murder, I have always thought they were from something that was used in the shower and were on the bottom of somebody's feet. Rust, shampoo,soiled feet, some cleaning agent, etc.

 

[Grinder]

I think we are on the same wavelength now. What is crystal clear to me is that these "prints" whatever they were, were allowed to dry and probably were from a substance that was naked to the eye and were never "cleaned".
From my perspective there is no way in hell, they came from the murder. Probably were made before the murder, I have always thought they were from something that was used in the shower and were on the bottom of somebody's feet. Rust, shampoo,soiled feet, some cleaning agent, etc.

Yes we are agreed basically on this. I've always thought that the prints were in blood that was diluted beyond the sensitivity limits of TMB. It seems very possible that someone had a small amount of blood from a cut, nose bleed or other source in the shower of bidet. This could have been month before because as I have posted in the past, blood is very hard to clean away. If the floors were generally just mopped with a weak cleaning solution blood could remain in a small amount. Large enough for the sensitivity of luminol to pick it up but not TMB.

It could be as you say but your designated substances don't have the staying power of blood. How many of the residents of that flat or their girlfriends would have feet compatible with those luminol prints?

In my reading of the literature it is clear that luminol is more sensitive than TMB in that it will pick up blood when it is a greater dilution. Now if the 1:10,000 number for TMB meant that TMB failed once in 10,000 while luminol only failed once in 1,000,000 I don't see why TMB would be used after luminol.

It is clear the sensitivity means what it seems to mean.

So if a shoemaker was working on a sole and cut himself and went outside to wash off his hand with a hose and a puddle formed with a very dilute blood mixture, which was later tested for blood because of a murder in the candlestick maker's shop next door and it tested positive with luminol they would then test it with TMB. However if it tested positive with TMB there would be no need to use luminol after, because it is more sensitive and would surely test positive.

 

[Grinder]

Machiavelli - do you agree that Mignini commented in the video that Satanism can never really be ruled out in a crime investigation?

Where are you getting your translation?

Do you believe in Satan?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes we are agreed basically on this. I've always thought that the prints were in blood that was diluted beyond the sensitivity limits of TMB. It seems very possible that someone had a small amount of blood from a cut, nose bleed or other source in the shower of bidet. This could have been month before because as I have posted in the past, blood is very hard to clean away. If the floors were generally just mopped with a weak cleaning solution blood could remain in a small amount. Large enough for the sensitivity of luminol to pick it up but not TMB.

It could be as you say but your designated substances don't have the staying power of blood. How many of the residents of that flat or their girlfriends would have feet compatible with those luminol prints?

In my reading of the literature it is clear that luminol is more sensitive than TMB in that it will pick up blood when it is a greater dilution. Now if the 1:10,000 number for TMB meant that TMB failed once in 10,000 while luminol only failed once in 1,000,000 I don't see why TMB would be used after luminol.

It is clear the sensitivity means what it seems to mean.

So if a shoemaker was working on a sole and cut himself and went outside to wash off his hand with a hose and a puddle formed with a very dilute blood mixture, which was later tested for blood because of a murder in the candlestick maker's shop next door and it tested positive with luminol they would then test it with TMB. However if it tested positive with TMB there would be no need to use luminol after, because it is more sensitive and would surely test positive.

Different time? Yes, we agree. Blood? Probably not. Luminol is more sensitive than TMB but the window of difference is simply not that large. Arguing that the TMB test failed because of sensitivity is an attempt by the prosecution to have their cake and eat it too.

I disagree with your shoe maker analogy, in fact I'm not sure I understand it. But that's ok. Maybe it's above my pay grade.

There is a reason Grinder that performing both tests is the standard protocol and it has nothing to do with sensitivity. It has to do with specificity. Both react to blood, but they react to different components of blood. Individually, a positive test from either means that "maybe" it's blood. A positive test from both means that it more than likely blood. But that really isn't enough and that is why a confirmatory test is then performed.

 

[RoseMontague]

The other issues with the Luminol evidence are, in my opinion, the over-application and the photography (over-exposure). It is difficult for me to determine exactly how strong these reactions are with these two factors involved. That brings a whole host of other possible reactive substances into play. I am certainly not an expert on this but I would have to say the people applying the Luminol and taking pictures of the reactions are not expert either. The last thing is the (still) missing photo of the blob in Filomena's room. Strange that this one, probably the most damaging one to the defense, has no photographic evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Different time? Yes, we agree. Blood? Probably not. Luminol is more sensitive than TMB but the window of difference is simply not that large. Arguing that the TMB test failed because of sensitivity is an attempt by the prosecution to have their cake and eat it too.

The literature is pretty clear that TMB is much less sensitive. There are not as many substances that light up as PIP claim. I think PIP don't want to entertain the possibility that it may be dilute blood because that makes it part of the crime. Blood is very hard to get rid of and it could be from the source I described.

I disagree with your shoe maker analogy, in fact I'm not sure I understand it. But that's ok. Maybe it's above my pay grade.

Some like example stories.

There is a reason Grinder that performing both tests is the standard protocol and it has nothing to do with sensitivity. It has to do with specificity. Both react to blood, but they react to different components of blood. Individually, a positive test from either means that "maybe" it's blood. A positive test from both means that it more than likely blood. But that really isn't enough and that is why a confirmatory test is then performed.

Still awaiting those more specific links but that makes sense. But if the blood solution is diluted enough the TMB wouldn't react because of the sensitivity issue.

 

[Grinder]

The other issues with the Luminol evidence are, in my opinion, the over-application and the photography (over-exposure). It is difficult for me to determine exactly how strong these reactions are with these two factors involved. That brings a whole host of other possible reactive substances into play. I am certainly not an expert on this but I would have to say the people applying the Luminol and taking pictures of the reactions are not expert either. The last thing is the (still) missing photo of the blob in Filomena's room. Strange that this one, probably the most damaging one to the defense, has no photographic evidence.

Well put. I have never heard an explanation as to why the booties of the CSI people had blobs that lit up on them.

The blob in F's room is the most problematic of all the "finds" . I thought there was a picture but it was just a blob.

Did they find F's DNA anywhere in the house?

 

[LondonJohn]

We are not makeing academic debates. I use the term sensitivity in the way it is used by literature. You can argue about "the statistical way it should be used" with the authors, not with me.
Forensic papers talk about a concentration ratio.


The most amusing thing, is whenever I prove to be right, your response will be predictable to be a condescending tone.

Again, I referring to the fact that the device used in forensic videos look like Hemastix strips. I am talking about what Stefanoni actually did. Not about what a theoretical TMB solution is. The "sample" technique was used for the knife, as far as I know; while hemastix was used on the stains.
But anyway this makes no difference, since TMB is not as specific nor as sensitive than luminol, in all the forms in which the test can be performed.

Things that I already know, thanks.

As I said, the whole thing is pointless. Hemastix is considered the most specific, while the sample dilution could be more sensitive. Albeit, there are several ways for both using an reading the hemastix strip, methods which would modify the result. But the substance is the same. And it is a property of the substance, that of being reactive to all same substances to which Luminol reacts, and to be less sensitive.

The proces is always chemically identical, both with luminol (which in fact reacts with peroxide) and with hemastix strips (it's the identical oxidation process).
There is nothing lees scientific than your concept of "higlhy likely": it is just not true that a TMB sample reaction would be "more likely" blood than a luminol reaction.

Which is what was done.

You will preferebly use the term "education" with some of your students.

I recall some days ago when you found "strange" that alcoholemic rate was measured by grams per litre (what a strange thing, a mass for a volume.. wasn't that what you said, mr Expert LJ ...?) believe me you have a little to learn too.

It really doesn't become you to copy the style of my post in response (just a hint). But let's address the substantive points.

1) I do not doubt (and never suggested) that the word "sensitivity" is sometimes used to refer to dilution ratios. My contention is that a different term should be used, since there is already a term "sensitivity" in use for just these sorts of binary tests which means something completely different.

2) The full TMB test should have been used by Stefanoni and her band of incompetent idiots on all marks that luminesced under Luminol. If she used Hemastix strips to do these tests, she's an idiot. She's an idiot because Hemastix sticks will tell her no more about the likelihood of the marks being blood-based than Luminol - in fact Hemistix will probably tell her less than Luminol. Hemastix should only ever be used as a first-time presumptive test in the field, and must ALWAYS be followed up by confirmatory tests. The only proper test to follow a positve Luminol test is the full TMB two-part test.

3) It appears that you still don't understand the difference between the Hemastix test and the proper TMB two-part test. Please read again the links I provided earlier to the testing instructions. For ease, though, I'll point out the salient points again: Hemastix contain both the TMB reagent and the peroxide catalyser on the head of the stick. Therefore, when the stick is used to test a mark, both processes occur on top of each other and are indistinguishable. This means that if there's a blue or green colouration, the tester is unable to determine whether the colouration was caused by the reaction to the reagent or by the reaction to the catalyser. That's why Hemastix are not very specific - they will change colour for a wide number of different oxidants in addition to blood.

However....... the proper TMB test has two discrete parts, and the important thing is that the tester is able to view the results of both parts separately in time. When the TMB reagent is applied to the mark, if it turns blue/green then the substance is not blood, but is instead some other oxidant. If the application of the TMB produces no colour change, however, the tester applies part two of the test: the peroxide catalyser. If a blue/green colour is now produced by the catalyser, then it's highly likely that blood is present. (Of course, if there's no colour change with the peroxide either, then there's neither blood nor any other oxidant present).

So, you see, there's a massive and fundamentally important difference between a Hemastix test and a full TMB test, in that a full TMB test enables the tester to differentiate between blood and other oxidants. In science, we call this having a high specificity.

4) Yes, I do find it strange that a quantity that is a liquid (ethyl alcohol) diluted in another quantity that is also a liquid (blood) is measured in a mass-per-unit-volume measure. If alcohol were solid at room temperature, it would be normal and natural to deal in g/l - likewise if it were a gas at room temperature and normal pressure, it would be appropriate to measure it in cubic metres per litre. And the internationally-standardised way of measuring blood alcohol content is indeed in volume-per-unit-volume: ml/dL. You obviously didn't study science beyond a very basic level at school.

 

[acbytesla]

The literature is pretty clear that TMB is much less sensitive. There are not as many substances that light up as PIP claim. I think PIP don't want to entertain the possibility that it may be dilute blood because that makes it part of the crime. Blood is very hard to get rid of and it could be from the source I described.


Still awaiting those more specific links but that makes sense. But if the blood solution is diluted enough the TMB wouldn't react because of the sensitivity issue.

Sure, it's possible Grinder. But how diluted does the blood solution have to be? There will always be debate on that. Why bother performing the TMB test if you are going to assume it's blood anyway? There has to be a reason that Stefanoni did the TMB test. With one test positive and one test negative, don't you think that it is dishonest to argue that it is blood without a tiebreaker, an actual confirmatory test needs to be done?

None of this however takes away from the fact that the Luminol photographs don't show any of the tell tale streaks that a clean up would have left. The combination of the obvious footprints in blood of Rudy Guede and the the invisible to to the eye prints (that are only revealed with the luminol without streaking) means CONCLUSIVELY that these events did not happen at the same time.

 

[LondonJohn]

The literature is pretty clear that TMB is much less sensitive. There are not as many substances that light up as PIP claim. I think PIP don't want to entertain the possibility that it may be dilute blood because that makes it part of the crime. Blood is very hard to get rid of and it could be from the source I described.

Some like example stories.

Still awaiting those more specific links but that makes sense. But if the blood solution is diluted enough the TMB wouldn't react because of the sensitivity issue.

You're absolutely correct that Luminol is more sensitive to blood than TMB in both senses of the term: in other words, it is capable of detecting blood in higher dilutions than TMB (for the same given volume), and it produces fewer false negatives.

And you might, on the face of it, think that it would therefore be pointless to follow a Luminol test with a TMB test. But you'd be wrong. Because a proper TMB test holds one very significant advantage over Luminol: it has a far higher specificity. If something glows under Luminol, it can be quite a few things other than blood. If that same substance is then tested under the two-part TMB test, a large number of other oxidants that also cause Luminol luminescence can be ruled out. If a Luminol test followed by a two-part TMB test both produce positives (i.e. with the TMB test giving a negative for part one, then a positive for part two), then it's very likely that blood is present. However, it's still standard practice to then conduct a confirmatory test for blood, along with a DNA test.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

limit of detection

The other issues with the Luminol evidence are, in my opinion, the over-application and the photography (over-exposure). It is difficult for me to determine exactly how strong these reactions are with these two factors involved. That brings a whole host of other possible reactive substances into play. I am certainly not an expert on this but I would have to say the people applying the Luminol and taking pictures of the reactions are not expert either. The last thing is the (still) missing photo of the blob in Filomena's room. Strange that this one, probably the most damaging one to the defense, has no photographic evidence.

Good points. I would add that at least as important as the negative TMB test is the lack of a confirmatory test.

With respect to sensitivity, I have had a couple of conversations with my colleague who is an analytical chemist about this general issue. Based on seminars and papers he has reviewed, even chemists sometimes misuse these terms. I think we should use the phrase "limit of detection" when we talk about a particular dilution that gives a positive result. "LoD is the lowest analyte concentration likely to be reliably distinguished from the LoB and at which detection is feasible. LoD is determined by utilising both the measured LoB and test replicates of a sample known to contain a low concentration of analyte."

Sensitivity has two related definitions in chemistry, and both include the slope of a standard curve. Sensitivity is the ability to discriminate between two concentrations that are close but not identical. Although many assays attempt to measure what the concentration of a chemical species is, the particular assays in question do not (they are yes/no tests). Therefore when discussing chemical tests, I suggest that we reserve the use of the word sensitivity to its textbook definition. We can also use "sensitivity" in the statistical sense that LondonJohn discussed, but it might be helpful to explain what we mean in each case.

By the way, limit of detection and limit of quantitation are also important in a paper on run-specific detection limits in DNA profiling, a paper that has been discussed here before.

 

[Grinder]

Sure, it's possible Grinder. But how diluted does the blood solution have to be? There will always be debate on that. Why bother performing the TMB test if you are going to assume it's blood anyway? There has to be a reason that Stefanoni did the TMB test. With one test positive and one test negative, don't you think that it is dishonest to argue that it is blood without a tiebreaker, an actually confirmatory test needs to be done?

Absolutely. My point on this has been that with the known testing, considering the different sensitivities of luminol and TMB it could be the case that it was a very diluted mixture of blood. In that the prints are there and most of the substances known to react with luminol do not require strong cleaners to remove but blood does, it seems very possible that someone had a tiny bit of blood in water and left the prints well before the murder.

None of this however takes away from the fact that the Luminol photographs don't show any of the tell tale streaks that a clean up would have left. The combination of the obvious footprints in blood of Rudy Guede and the the invisible to to the eye prints (that are only revealed with the luminol without streaking) means CONCLUSIVELY that these events did not happen at the same time.

That seems fair enough. What is your theory of why there are only one sided prints (left or right can't remember). Do you think they were left that way?

 

[Grinder]

You're absolutely correct that Luminol is more sensitive to blood than TMB in both senses of the term: in other words, it is capable of detecting blood in higher dilutions than TMB (for the same given volume), and it produces fewer false negatives.

And you might, on the face of it, think that it would therefore be pointless to follow a Luminol test with a TMB test. But you'd be wrong. Because a proper TMB test holds one very significant advantage over Luminol: it has a far higher specificity. If something glows under Luminol, it can be quite a few things other than blood. If that same substance is then tested under the two-part TMB test, a large number of other oxidants that also cause Luminol luminescence can be ruled out. If a Luminol test followed by a two-part TMB test both produce positives (i.e. with the TMB test giving a negative for part one, then a positive for part two), then it's very likely that blood is present. However, it's still standard practice to then conduct a confirmatory test for blood, along with a DNA test.

Luminol produces more false negatives for blood than TMB. I understand the follow-up test with TMB though I must admit that Tesla cleared it up even more for me.

Of course more tests are used if needed. In some cases the precise material may not be needed to be identified.

For example if a murder is committed with a gun and the gun is found that matches the bullet and that gun has a fingerprint on the trigger and other parts of it, the precise substance may be of little importance.

In this case obviously it is very important and the luminol isn't enough even if Stefanoni is an artist at reading the glow.

 

[tsig]

Another lie you are going on repeating. The truth: they (Stefanoni?) were never "caught". The TMB tests were revealed by the prosecution themselves.
Even the very existence of the SAL was declared by Comodi first, before anyone ever "caught" her. She was the first one who talked about SALs and laboratory documentation before Massei, not the defence.
Had they wanted to hide the SALs, they would have gone on hiding them, destroy them (like the Carabinieri do with their laboratory items) or would have provided a manifactured SAL.
Instead, when requested, they gave information without objecting.
So, they were not "caught". They disclosed information (which the defence could have already had, if their experts accessed the laboratories during the investigation), then they disclosed further information on request.
Thus, they never hid anything.
I understand you don't like this wording.
But it's the truth.

There isn't any 'original contention' and anyway it doesn't matter: there is just a piece of evidence, a series of bare foot shaped luminol stains, which are logically attributable only to stepping in diluted blood after a clean up of the murder scene. While there is no alternative substance nor alternative scenario proposed to explain them.
And this, is absolutely not nonsense. It's logic.

If you believe there is nothing incriminating in diluted blood being in that hallway in that set of prints, in my opinion your contention is something logically impossible to sustain. There isn't a plausible, or probable, alternative explanation for having that specific set of diluted footrpints produced by a totally innocent cause.

I'm sure you're aware that the entire PLE was out to get her. The police coerced a statement out of her for which she was in no way responsible, lab techs and bosses falsified results to frame her and the judges handed out the railroad tickets.

If only she hadn't inflamed them with that Cartwheel.

 

[acbytesla]

Absolutely. My point on this has been that with the known testing, considering the different sensitivities of luminol and TMB it could be the case that it was a very diluted mixture of blood. In that the prints are there and most of the substances known to react with luminol do not require strong cleaners to remove but blood does, it seems very possible that someone had a tiny bit of blood in water and left the prints well before the murder.

I'm not sure about this. Where did you get this idea?

You may be right that it is blood from weeks, months, even years before. Who knows? Not sure about this at all. I do know that Luminol reacts mostly to the IRON in the blood. So rust from the pipes is really a very high probability as well.

That seems fair enough. What is your theory of why there are only one sided prints (left or right can't remember). Do you think they were left that way?

Which prints are you talking about? Rudy's shoe prints? Or the luminol prints?

Either way, I'm not sure. For the Luminol, I think there are too many possibilities to say.

 

[codyjuneau]

Well put. I have never heard an explanation as to why the booties of the CSI people had blobs that lit up on them.
The blob in F's room is the most problematic of all the "finds" . I thought there was a picture but it was just a blob.

Did they find F's DNA anywhere in the house?

.
Hmmm, blood or grapefruit juice? You decide?
.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure about this. Where did you get this idea?

You may be right that it is blood from weeks, months, even years before. Who knows? Not sure about this at all. I do know that Luminol reacts mostly to the IRON in the blood. So rust from the pipes is really a very high probability as well.

I posted the link a couple of times maybe Chris kept it. Blood is very hard to erase and the source used the term strong cleaner. If it was rust in the piped I would think there would be prints everywhere.

Which prints are you talking about? Rudy's shoe prints? Or the luminol prints?

Either way, I'm not sure. For the Luminol, I think there are too many possibilities to say.

I was talking about the bare footprints that the prosecution said are compatible with Amanda (and probably 25+% of all women)

 

[Grinder]

I'm sure you're aware that the entire PLE was out to get her. The police coerced a statement out of her for which she was in no way responsible, lab techs and bosses falsified results to frame her and the judges handed out the railroad tickets.

If only she hadn't inflamed them with that Cartwheel.

Tsig, could you explain what the police chief meant when he said that the interrogators questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct? Since she told them things that weren't correct, isn't it unbelievable that she told them exactly what they themselves were thinking, yet it wasn't correct.

Amanda's account of the interrogation matches one in which the interrogators suggest the statement they wish to have her make. Her notes over the next 2 days make it clear that without the advice of anybody she wanted it known that she really couldn't testify to those things she said in the statements.

I would say that most of the things you describe were the result of incompetence and a poor system. It is instructive that Mach describes a system that isn't designed to find truth but rather follow form. The prosecution need not disclose everything they have and the defense must pay $100 per document, really?

There own experts on DNA said that the knife and bra evidence couldn't be used.

 

[Antony]

I'm sure you're aware that the entire PLE was out to get her. The police coerced a statement out of her for which she was in no way responsible, lab techs and bosses falsified results to frame her and the judges handed out the railroad tickets.

You seem to be being sarcastic, but that's a fair summary of the reality. The only reasonable interpretation of the actions of police, prosecution and judges is that they were and are following an agenda which does not include establishing the truth about the crime. The catalog of denial of defendants' rights, falsifying evidence, concealing evidence and judges bending over backwards to favour the prosecution makes this agenda very clear.

If only she hadn't inflamed them with that Cartwheel.

This comment betrays your sarcastic intent. Of course, the alleged "cartwheel" was a fabrication by the police in order to discredit Amanda. The real motivation for the malicious agenda against the 2 students was initially the rush to "solve" the crime the easy way, and morphed into an concerted cover-up of their incompetent and illegal actions that led to the initial arrests.

Tell me, do you seriously believe that official cover-ups don't happen?