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

[Machiavelli]

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.

You're right. I didn't think about it.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Why would you think they would be every where? The reason they are in just limited areas might a result of many things. For example, a steel fitting in one place, where there might be just copper or pex fittings in the other bathroom and kitchen. If it was a long time before, there might have been a partial clean up of the rusty water where, these prints were allowed to dry. My point is there really is no way to know.

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

I'm not sure how they can say that those bare footprints are compatible with say 25+% women. Why not say 50%+ or 75% of women? How did they determine this figure from those blobs? Can you see that this figure was undoubtedly pulled out of thin air?

Do they really have to be from a woman? How about a child or a man? My bet is that those prints were compatible with all the roommates. Did they really rule out Filomena, Meredith an Laura? I doubt it.

From my perspective, the biggest reason to believe that they belong to Amanda is not the size and shape of those very amorphous blobs, but their location, mostly in Amanda's room and in the hallway. But consider this Grinder. Amanda had only lived in that cottage for 40 days. Isn't it possible that those prints had been there for months, even a year before? How would anyone really know?

 

[Grinder]

Why would you think they would be every where? The reason they are in just limited areas might a result of many things. For example, a steel fitting in one place, where there might be just copper or pex fittings in the other bathroom and kitchen. If it was a long time before, there might have been a partial clean up of the rusty water where, these prints were allowed to dry. My point is there really is no way to know.

If the water were rusty I would expect that whenever someone took a shower they would get the rust on their feet.

[quoteI'm not sure how they can say that those bare footprints are compatible with say 25+% women. Why not say 50%+ or 75% of women? How did they determine this figure from those blobs? Can you see that this figure was undoubtedly pulled out of thin air? [/quote]

It was I that made up the 25+% number. They measured the length and width.

Do they really have to be from a woman? How about a child or a man? My bet is that those prints were compatible with all the roommates. Did they really rule out Filomena, Meredith an Laura? I doubt it.

Yes that has been my point all along. Compatible is too low a standard for evidence in court.

From my perspective, the biggest reason to believe that they belong to Amanda is not the size and shape of those very amorphous blobs, but their location, mostly in Amanda's room and in the hallway. But consider this Grinder. Amanda had only lived in that cottage for 40 days. Isn't it possible that those prints had been there for months, even a year before? How would anyone really know?

Tesla I said just a few posts back that the prints could be from some other time going back even to previous roommates especially if the substance is something as hard to remove as blood.

Btw, did you ever find the details on Filomena's alibi?

ETA - here is the info on blood staying

Much of crime scene investigation, also called criminalistics, is based on the notion that nothing vanishes without a trace. This is particularly true of violent crime victims. A murderer can dispose of the victim's body and mop up the pools of blood, but without some heavy-duty cleaning chemicals, some evidence will remain. Tiny particles of blood will cling to most surfaces for years and years, without anyone ever knowing they're there.
The basic idea of luminol is to reveal these traces with a light-producing chemical reaction between several chemicals and hemoglobin, an oxygen-carrying protein in the blood.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Where is the mark for Amanda's second toe?

Looks like a toe to me. It is right where someone with a shorter toe would leave a mark and is more detailed and larger than the marks close to the heel that you are referring to. I don't have Rinaldi's testimony, but would be happy to look at it if you have it, otherwise what you are saying is meaningless. In his report, he ignores it. Torre talks about it as a toe and says to him it is pretty obvious it doesn't match Amanda's.

I discussed the second toe with a commenter named "BMull." He was of the opinion that no one has a second toe as short as the mark in the luminol print. Yet even if we agree that the mark is not a second toe, then where is Amanda's second toe in the print if she indeed made it? Her reference print indicates that her second toe is quite long, relative to her big toe. I would like to have the opinion of a doctor who specializes in feet or some other professional with specialist knowledge before I come to a final conclusion.

EDT
Is it possible that some of the luminol prints in the hallway were made by someone wearing socks?

 

[Bill Williams]

Where are you getting your translation?

Do you believe in Satan?

Mignini is joining in with saying that investigators make two mistakes with regard to Satanism - one is to make wild theories about it and the other is to rule it out all together.

This is what Machiavelli does not want you to know. Mignini is his own worst enemy here, he's trying to distance himself from Spezi’s claims, then leaves the door open.

 

[acbytesla]

If the water were rusty I would expect that whenever someone took a shower they would get the rust on their feet.

Well, not necessarily Grinder. A high level of rust might accumulate if a fixture hasn't been used for a while and then when it does begin to be used regularly, then there would only be trace amounts. But I don't really want to focus on it being rust. The truth is WE DON'T KNOW..And guessing simply doesn't have that much merit.

Btw, did you ever find the details on Filomena's alibi?

No, looked, but didn't find anything specific. Just a general, she was with her boyfriend.

ETA - here is the info on blood staying

Much of crime scene investigation, also called criminalistics, is based on the notion that nothing vanishes without a trace. This is particularly true of violent crime victims. A murderer can dispose of the victim's body and mop up the pools of blood, but without some heavy-duty cleaning chemicals, some evidence will remain. Tiny particles of blood will cling to most surfaces for years and years, without anyone ever knowing they're there.
The basic idea of luminol is to reveal these traces with a light-producing chemical reaction between several chemicals and hemoglobin, an oxygen-carrying protein in the blood.

I'm not sure about "most surfaces" Carpets, fibers, sure. Ceramic tile? I wouldn't bet on it. (Maybe the grout).

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure about "most surfaces" Carpets, fibers, sure. Ceramic tile? I wouldn't bet on it. (Maybe the grout).

The grout for sure. But I doubt rust, juice etc would not clean from the tiles so since something was on the tiles...

Could Stefanoni have stepped in blood with one bootie. Is her foot compatible with the prints

 

[davefoc]

Various claims:
1A. The standard TMB two part test is more selective than Luminol
1B. The standard TMB two part test is not more selective than Luminol

2A. Stefanoni used the haemastix TMB test
2B. Stefanoni was an idiot if she use the haemastix TMB test which is not very selective
2C. Steganoni probably used the haemastix TMB test and she's not an idiot or a liar.
2C. Stefanoni used the standard two part TMB test

3A. Before Stefanoni testified, the defense had documents that revealed the negative TMB test results.
3B. The defense did not receive the negative TMB test result report before Stefanoni testified

4A. Stefanoni should have done a confirmatory blood test before she testified that the samples contained blood.
4B. Testing, confirmatory or presumptive, wasn't necessary because once glowing from luminol was detected where it was detected it was just common sense that the sample contained blood.

5A. The finding of blood in the "footprints" only revealed by luminol does not constitute evidence of AK/RS guilt.
5B. The finding of blood in these footprints does indicate AK/RS guilt because it indicates the presence of multiple attackers or because it provides evidence of a clean up or perhaps for some other reason.

6A. The negative TMB findings in multiple foot prints suggest strongly that there was no blood in the foot prints.
6B. The negative TMB findings in multiple foot prints don't indicate anything except that luminol is more sensitive than the TMB testing that was done.

7A. Luminol is much more sensitive than TMB tests.
7B. Luminol is not that much more sensitive than the standard two part TMB tests and it is unlikely that the blood was diluted exactly enough to cause a positive luminol reaction and a negative reaction, especially given what looks like a strong luminol reaction.

I have been following this debate a bit, unfortunately from my perspective both sides are making claims based on sources that aren't specified or linked to so it is a bit difficult to sort out the facts for the people in the peanut gallery. Some of the difficulty here is the question about which kind of TMB test Stefanoni did. It sounds like that if she did the haemastix version it might not have been that unreasonable to conclude that the foot prints still contained blood because the haemastix test isn't that sensitive for blood. Of course, that doesn't explain why she wouldn't have done a confirmatory test for blood if it was her intention to testify that the prints contained blood.

As an aside what is SAL? This thread has a lot of acronyms used in it and I generally try to hold off asking about them because I am trying to hide my ignorance. But I have decided to just let go of my ego here and ask about it. The closest that Wikipedia got me was: Sterility Assurance Level in microbiology. It sounds like in this context SAL is some kind of report released by the forensic department?

 

[acbytesla]

The grout for sure. But I doubt rust, juice etc would not clean from the tiles so since something was on the tiles...

Could Stefanoni have stepped in blood with one bootie. Is her foot compatible with the prints

I don't know if blood is going to last longer than rust or dried juice on a ceramic floor. In fact, I have no idea and I'll suggest that you don't know either. No offense intended. I'm not sure blood is some magical substance compared to other organic or mineral compounds.

If it was only just Stefanoni. Did you see the pictures of how many of these detectives walked through the crime scene?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

As an aside what is SAL? This thread has a lot of acronyms used in it and I generally try to hold off asking about them because I am trying to hide my ignorance. But I have decided to just let go of my ego here and ask about it. The closest that Wikipedia got me was: Sterility Assurance Level in microbiology. It sounds like in this context SAL is some kind of report released by the forensic department?

It stands for Stato Avanzamento Lavori and it is the "log" if you will, of all the samples taken. Each sample is numbered and the specific result is given (e.g. saliva is present, positive with luminol, etc.) I have the pdf but I can't link to it because it is on my hard drive. Perhaps someone can link to where a copy is available.

 

[Grinder]

I don't know if blood is going to last longer than rust or dried juice on a ceramic floor. In fact, I have no idea and I'll suggest that you don't know either. No offense intended. I'm not sure blood is some magical substance compared to other organic or mineral compounds.

If it was only just Stefanoni. Did you see the pictures of how many of these detectives walked through the crime scene?

Well I did give a source that made the point specifically that blood has properties that make it hard to remove and findable years later.

Ever get blood on a shirt? Not easy to clean.

Now what ires me a bit here is that you suggest that I don't know something I've given a link to yet you make a claim that Filomena has the same alibi that Amanda does yet you have no source and refuse to acknowledge that even Amanda says she had a solid alibi.

Now I don't claim to be a CSI expert as some others falsely do here but I gave a link and a quote and it does seem that if many substances were as hard to clean and lit up that luminol wouldn't be of much value.

Blood* is one *of the most difficult substances to remove once it has stained a fabric, surface, or laundry.
However, stain removal can be accomplished with some help, usually with everyday items that can be found around the house.

Stone Surfaces
Follow these steps to remove blood stains from Alabaster or Marble:
Wipe stain with a sponge dipped in cold water.
If stain remains, mix a poultice of water, powdered detergent, and chlorine bleach. Apply it thickly to the stain and cover with a damp cloth to retard drying.
When the stain has been bleached out, rinse thoroughly and dry.
Follow these steps to remove blood stains from Bluestone, Brick, Concrete, Flagstone, Granite, Limestone, Masonry Tile, Sandstone, Slate or Terrazzo:
Try wiping up the stain with a sponge dipped in cool water.
If any stain remains, wash or brush (the method of using a stiff-bristled brush to gently remove dried stains and spots) stain with a solution of washing soda or detergent in warm water.
Rinse well and allow to dry.

Blood stains can be especially difficult to remove because the hemoglobin in the blood acts as a binder when it hits the air and binds

 

[Supernaut]

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.

Shoo!!

 

[davefoc]

...
If stain remains, mix a poultice of water, powdered detergent, and chlorine bleach. Apply it thickly to the stain and cover with a damp cloth to retard drying.
When the stain has been bleached out, rinse thoroughly and dry.
...

In a paper I read on-line about the limitations of TMB testing, one of the chemicals listed that was good at causing a false negative was bleach. The paper contained some theorizing that I didn't understand about why that was so chemically. But I think the bottom line here is if you need to clean up after you've committed a murder, bleach is a good thing to have on hand. It also is good at destroying DNA evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

Well I did give a source that made the point specifically that blood has properties that make it hard to remove and findable years later.

Ever get blood on a shirt? Not easy to clean.

Now what ires me a bit here is that you suggest that I don't know something I've given a link to yet you make a claim that Filomena has the same alibi that Amanda does yet you have no source and refuse to acknowledge that even Amanda says she had a solid alibi.

Now I don't claim to be a CSI expert as some others falsely do here but I gave a link and a quote and it does seem that if many substances were as hard to clean and lit up that luminol wouldn't be of much value.

Blood* is one *of the most difficult substances to remove once it has stained a fabric, surface, or laundry.
However, stain removal can be accomplished with some help, usually with everyday items that can be found around the house.

Stone Surfaces
Follow these steps to remove blood stains from Alabaster or Marble:
Wipe stain with a sponge dipped in cold water.
If stain remains, mix a poultice of water, powdered detergent, and chlorine bleach. Apply it thickly to the stain and cover with a damp cloth to retard drying.
When the stain has been bleached out, rinse thoroughly and dry.
Follow these steps to remove blood stains from Bluestone, Brick, Concrete, Flagstone, Granite, Limestone, Masonry Tile, Sandstone, Slate or Terrazzo:
Try wiping up the stain with a sponge dipped in cool water.
If any stain remains, wash or brush (the method of using a stiff-bristled brush to gently remove dried stains and spots) stain with a solution of washing soda or detergent in warm water.
Rinse well and allow to dry.

Blood stains can be especially difficult to remove because the hemoglobin in the blood acts as a binder when it hits the air and binds

I'm not trying to offend you Grinder. Quite the contrary. I know blood can be a challenge to remove from lots of things. Anyone who has ever had a dried on blood stain on a shirt knows that. But I can clearly show you that the same is true for lots of organic compounds.
Ever try and get red wind out of a shirt . By the way, red wine and other juices will stain marble, travertine, other stones, concrete. Also dried juices may leave residue that remains but is difficult to see.

By the way, they never really mention the best cleaning solution I know. But I wouldn't use it on pourous stone without testing it in a inconspicuous location. TSP. (Not the fake TSP) but real TSP.

 

[LondonJohn]

In a paper I read on-line about the limitations of TMB testing, one of the chemicals listed that was good at causing a false negative was bleach. The paper contained some theorizing that I didn't understand about why that was so chemically. But I think the bottom line here is if you need to clean up after you've committed a murder, bleach is a good thing to have on hand. It also is good at destroying DNA evidence.

I think you may be misunderstanding "false negative". If you apply hypochlorite solution - bleach - to blood at a reasonable concentration, it will denature both red and white blood cells. It will, in effect, "destroy" blood.

If that happens, you're not talking about a "false negative" for blood under a TMB test. You're talking about a true negative: there is no blood present. The fact that there may once have been blood present, but that this blood has been destroyed by bleach, does not mean that a negative presumptive test for blood will be a "false negative".

Here's an example to try to clarify further. suppose you type the word "dog" somewhere in a one-page word document. Suppose that you now go and perform a "process" upon that word "dog" to destroy it in situ - in the same was as bleach destroys blood in situ. In the case of the word "dog", the process might consist of rearranging the letters of the word to read "ogd". So while the constituents of "dog" are still there, "dog" itself is not.

Now suppose you conduct a test for "dog". In other words, you do an automated word search of the whole document, looking for "dog". You won't find any "dog". This is not a false negative. This is a true negative, since there's no "dog" any more, just "ogd".

 

[davefoc]

It stands for Stato Avanzamento Lavori and it is the "log" if you will, of all the samples taken. Each sample is numbered and the specific result is given (e.g. saliva is present, positive with luminol, etc.) I have the pdf but I can't link to it because it is on my hard drive. Perhaps someone can link to where a copy is available.

Thanks, after your explanation I realized I might have tried the Italian Wikipedia, which does have a brief article on it. Interesting (to me) factoid. The Italian Wikipedia is done with secure pages and the Bing translator and the Google translator wouldn't translate them. I was able to cut and paste the page into the translator though.

 

[davefoc]

I think you may be misunderstanding "false negative". If you apply hypochlorite solution - bleach - to blood at a reasonable concentration, it will denature both red and white blood cells. It will, in effect, "destroy" blood.

If that happens, you're not talking about a "false negative" for blood under a TMB test. You're talking about a true negative: there is no blood present. The fact that there may once have been blood present, but that this blood has been destroyed by bleach, does not mean that a negative presumptive test for blood will be a "false negative".

Here's an example to try to clarify further. suppose you type the word "dog" somewhere in a one-page word document. Suppose that you now go and perform a "process" upon that word "dog" to destroy it in situ - in the same was as bleach destroys blood in situ. In the case of the word "dog", the process might consist of rearranging the letters of the word to read "ogd". So while the constituents of "dog" are still there, "dog" itself is not.

Now suppose you conduct a test for "dog". In other words, you do an automated word search of the whole document, looking for "dog". You won't find any "dog". This is not a false negative. This is a true negative, since there's no "dog" any more, just "ogd".

You are right, false negative was the term I used and not the term used in the paper. But I don't think a murderer seeking to clean up the crime scene will care that much about the difference so my advice to JREF forum participants looking to clean up after the murders they have committed still stands as good advice I think.

 

[Supernaut]

Internet trolls are like frikking horse-flies.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are right, false negative was the term I used and not the term used in the paper. But I don't think a murderer seeking to clean up the crime scene will care that much about the difference so my advice to JREF forum participants looking to clean up after the murders they have committed still stands as good advice I think.

I agree that it's good advice. Indeed, I used bleach extensively, and they never had enough evidence to charge me

 

[RoseMontague]

Well I did give a source that made the point specifically that blood has properties that make it hard to remove and findable years later.

Ever get blood on a shirt? Not easy to clean.

Now what ires me a bit here is that you suggest that I don't know something I've given a link to yet you make a claim that Filomena has the same alibi that Amanda does yet you have no source and refuse to acknowledge that even Amanda says she had a solid alibi.

Now I don't claim to be a CSI expert as some others falsely do here but I gave a link and a quote and it does seem that if many substances were as hard to clean and lit up that luminol wouldn't be of much value.

Blood* is one *of the most difficult substances to remove once it has stained a fabric, surface, or laundry.
However, stain removal can be accomplished with some help, usually with everyday items that can be found around the house.

Stone Surfaces
Follow these steps to remove blood stains from Alabaster or Marble:
Wipe stain with a sponge dipped in cold water.
If stain remains, mix a poultice of water, powdered detergent, and chlorine bleach. Apply it thickly to the stain and cover with a damp cloth to retard drying.
When the stain has been bleached out, rinse thoroughly and dry.
Follow these steps to remove blood stains from Bluestone, Brick, Concrete, Flagstone, Granite, Limestone, Masonry Tile, Sandstone, Slate or Terrazzo:
Try wiping up the stain with a sponge dipped in cool water.
If any stain remains, wash or brush (the method of using a stiff-bristled brush to gently remove dried stains and spots) stain with a solution of washing soda or detergent in warm water.
Rinse well and allow to dry.

Blood stains can be especially difficult to remove because the hemoglobin in the blood acts as a binder when it hits the air and binds

Coca-Cola works best. But then you have to clean that up.