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

[Machiavelli]

As for the door handle, besides the fact that it had no Sollecito's DNA on it; and besided the fact that tertiary transfer of a microscopic particle on a certain is an intrinsically unlikely event (where 'unlikely' is an understatement, as being hit by a lightning is possible, and as much unlikely as that); and besides the fact that transfer anyway may occur only on moist material (if the cells are dry you won't detach them, and if you manage to detatch them you won't manege to have them adhere somewhere else); besides all the above said small technicalities that have to do with probability and with physics, as well as with the very existence of such a trace, anyway no technician touched the door handle on Dec. 18., because the door was already open, and could not be closed because in the Nov. 6 search the Flying Squad disassembled the wardrobe door and balanced it over the open door, factually blocking it in that position. The police also had previously installed two plantar columns with lights which would make it anyway impossible to clsoe the door, and it would make no sense for a forensic to touch it anyway (who are not "crack" forensics btw but good ones, albeit you like to believe your fantasy).

 

[acbytesla]

Broken.
You can relax. It was only negative to TMB.
Something which - is proven by literature - does not imply that a latent stain dwas not made in blood; it doesn't even make it become probable.

No, in fact the literature and the protocol clearly demonstrates that it TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD.

In fact, it is only bull speculation that the TMB provided a false negative. There is nothing to prove that. NOTHING.

 

[acbytesla]

Surely Goeffrey isn't the average guilter? He believes in all sorts of other lunacy as well (like Intelligent Design), it's almost as though he is trying to make guilters look bad.

He can't even spell his own name properly!

No, Mathew, I think all of that pretty much sizes up the average guilter.

 

[LondonJohn]

Broken.
You can relax. It was only negative to TMB.
Something which - is proven by literature - does not imply that a latent stain dwas not made in blood; it doesn't even make it become probable.

You urgently need to get in touch with both the Illinois Supreme Court and Dr Karl Reich of the UCLA and Harvard, to tell them they're wrong!

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/September/104443.pdf

Here's an interesting passage from that appeal (my highlighting and parentheses):

...defendant stated that Dr. Karl Reich, who holds a degree in molecular biology from the University of California, Los Angeles and Harvard University. was prepared to testify that the TMB test used by Camp (the police forensic scientist) is the most sensitive presumptive blood test available; that a negative TMB test strongly suggests that there is no blood in the area tested.;

The parallels between the TMB issues this case and the Kercher case are extremely illuminating and somewhat chilling. The police forensic scientist (Camp) had tested a print with TMB. The test came back negative for blood. Camp decided a) that this was a false negative, and b) that the negative TMB test need not be volunteered to the defence. Camp testified in the trial that the substance tested was blood, without mentioning the negative TMB test at all; she only admitted to the existence of the negative TMB test (which she then continued to maintain was a "false negative") under direct questioning during the trial itself. Sound familiar yet?

The Illinois Supreme Court found that this mendacity and obfuscation by the forensic scientist constituted in itself grounds to reverse the conviction and request a retrial (there were other grounds too, but the ruling makes it clear that the TMB issue alone necessitated a reversal).

Food for thought.......

 

[LondonJohn]

No, in fact the literature and the protocol clearly demonstrates that it TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD.

In fact, it is only bull speculation that the TMB provided a false negative. There is nothing to prove that. NOTHING.

Indeed. Read the link to the Illinois Supreme Court ruling from my previous post - I think you'll find it very interesting.....

 

[Skind]

Broken.
You can relax. It was only negative to TMB.
Something which - is proven by literature - does not imply that a latent stain dwas not made in blood; it doesn't even make it become probable.

The literature that has been discussed in this thread demonstrated the exact oppposite.

Reference examples of luminol glow at different concentrations have been provided previously in this thread.

The reference example of the glow provided by Luminol at the detection level that would produce a negative TMB result but still be blood was completely unlike the luminol hits found by the ILE.

What you are trying to claim has no parallel in the already discussed literature. You simply diverted onto discussion about relative detection levels - badly mangling basic terms along the way which you have not admitted error for - and somehow failed to discuss anything about the specific intensity of the luminol hits and what that would mean in terms of concentration.

The literature doesn't support the ILE contention at all.

 

[Samson]

Posted earlier.

 

[Bill Williams]

I never thought I'd be glad Machiavelli is back!

Say Mach - how do you think Nov 6 will go in the Nencini court?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's easy, the body wasn't staged it was an actual murder, the burglary wasn't staged, it was an actual burglary. I would bet the family home on both those facts. (In reply to Goeffrey a while ago).

I think everyone on all sides agrees it was an "actual murder"

(Only being flippant - I know what you meant)

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed. Read the link to the Illinois Supreme Court ruling from my previous post - I think you'll find it very interesting.....

Great link LJ. That's the difference between the US and Italy. In Italy when the scientist deliberately obfuscates their Supreme Court doubles down on the liar. In the US, we kick the a-hole to the curb.

 

[Grinder]

No, in fact the literature and the protocol clearly demonstrates that it TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD.

In fact, it is only bull speculation that the TMB provided a false negative. There is nothing to prove that. NOTHING.

while there is no need for the defense to prove contamination it is not the case that it tested negative for blood. What the TMB test showed was that it didn't test positive for blood, which not the same as testing negative for blood. There several reasons that it could be blood and yet not test positive using TMB.

The luminol test doesn't prove it is blood and that's for sure. If the prosecution wants to call it blood they should have proven it was blood with other tests.

If blood is diluted enough, TMB being less sensitive could test negatively. As I have mentioned before, the spots could have been there for a long time and even could be from diluted blood. We will never know because the ICSI screwed the pooch.

 

[Matthew Best]

You urgently need to get in touch with both the Illinois Supreme Court and Dr Karl Reich of the UCLA and Harvard, to tell them they're wrong!

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/September/104443.pdf

Here's an interesting passage from that appeal (my highlighting and parentheses):




The parallels between the TMB issues this case and the Kercher case are extremely illuminating and somewhat chilling. The police forensic scientist (Camp) had tested a print with TMB. The test came back negative for blood. Camp decided a) that this was a false negative, and b) that the negative TMB test need not be volunteered to the defence. Camp testified in the trial that the substance tested was blood, without mentioning the negative TMB test at all; she only admitted to the existence of the negative TMB test (which she then continued to maintain was a "false negative") under direct questioning during the trial itself. Sound familiar yet?

The Illinois Supreme Court found that this mendacity and obfuscation by the forensic scientist constituted in itself grounds to reverse the conviction and request a retrial (there were other grounds too, but the ruling makes it clear that the TMB issue alone necessitated a reversal).

Food for thought.......

That was very interesting, thanks for the link. I am relieved to read that Lovejoy was eventually convicted in a retrial.

 

[Supernaut]

Is there another website, a non-advocacy website where people talkl about Knox?

maybe city-data forum?

This seems like the Injustice website, not sure why these people don't just go over there.

Do you mean Injustice Anywhere?

The reason for the similarity is that both sites are run in such as way to include intelligent people and exclude moronic trolls.

 

[acbytesla]

while there is no need for the defense to prove contamination it is not the case that it tested negative for blood. What the TMB test showed was that it didn't test positive for blood, which not the same as testing negative for blood. There several reasons that it could be blood and yet not test positive using TMB.

The luminol test doesn't prove it is blood and that's for sure. If the prosecution wants to call it blood they should have proven it was blood with other tests.

If blood is diluted enough, TMB being less sensitive could test negatively. As I have mentioned before, the spots could have been there for a long time and even could be from diluted blood. We will never know because the ICSI screwed the pooch.

In fact,the TMB test absolutely showed it tested negative for blood. The Luminol provided a presumptive positive reaction for blood and the TMB provided a presumptive negative reaction for blood.
Maybe this math equation is illuminating.
1 -1 =0

 

[Matthew Best]

From LondonJohn's link:

"Dr. Karl Reich, who holds a degree in molecular biology from the University of California, Los Angeles and Harvard University, was prepared to testify that ... a negative TMB test strongly suggests that there is no blood in the area tested."

 

[Antony]

Hi - lurker here. You got your ass kicked, Goeffrey.

LOL!

 

[LondonJohn]

I think it's time that Machiavelli - and the rest of us - reminded ourselves of the utter shameful shambles that constituted the crime scene evidence collection in this case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYJiZq3TQh0

If I were a relative or close friend of the victim, I am absolutely certain that I would be both disgusted and angered by seeing this video.

(And regarding tertiary transfer opportunities - where do we start? It was such a colossal mess at that point, and the white-suited goon were being so cavalier in what they were picking up, that there are multiple opportunities for Sollecito's DNA to have been picked up on their gloves. Including the door and the door frame - despite the shocking and inexplicable decision to prop the highly-evidential wardrobe door up against the bedroom door. It's almost too disgusting for words.)

 

[acbytesla]

while there is no need for the defense to prove contamination it is not the case that it tested negative for blood. What the TMB test showed was that it didn't test positive for blood, which not the same as testing negative for blood. There several reasons that it could be blood and yet not test positive using TMB.

The luminol test doesn't prove it is blood and that's for sure. If the prosecution wants to call it blood they should have proven it was blood with other tests.

If blood is diluted enough, TMB being less sensitive could test negatively. As I have mentioned before, the spots could have been there for a long time and even could be from diluted blood. We will never know because the ICSI screwed the pooch.

Maybe this Football, or Futbol score is better
Luminol 1
TMB 1

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gregory Taylor case and presumptive blood testing

Mike Klinkosum wrote an article about the Gregory Taylor case in North Carolina, and how a number of cases of problematic blood forensics were uncovered in an audit. "What was not disclosed at Taylor’s trial was that NCSBI Agent Deaver had only provided the positive results from a presumptive test for blood known as a phenolphthalein [Kastle-Meyer] test. He had withheld from his official laboratory report the fact that he performed a confirmatory test (called a Takayama test) on the two stains that returned negative results for blood as to both substances...Agent Deaver had performed a third test on one of the suspected stains, a species origin determination test (referred to as the Ouchterlony test), designed to determine if the stain was human blood. He received a negative reaction on that test as well, but withheld the results of the Ouchterlony test from his official laboratory report."

The Lindy Chamberlain case also involves the misinterpretation of a presumptive test for blood. IMO the Chamberlain case is a good example where a number of people ginned up their evidence, possibly in response to other people ginning up their evidence.

 

[Katody Matrass]

How many samples did they take from a) the outside door handle, and b) the actual wood outside face of the door?

Do you think it's possible - just possible - that Sollecito's DNA was on one (or several) part(s) of the door that they didn't swab....?

I'm pretty sure they didn't test the door on the outside. Zero samples. The only sample was taken from the handle on the inside, because it was bloody.

Machiavelli's argumentation consists of making stuff up as he goes, as usual.