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

[Mary_H]

Well when I thought that Mignini had sent in the storm-troopers to roust Frank that made an impression that was highly unfavorable, even more than before. If it wasn't true that does temper my opinion.

If they added nothing to the information base why are they such celebs here?

I didn't say they added nothing. The point is that if everything they said were negated or even falsified (which obviously is not going to happen), the essential truths and information about the case would not change.

Mignini's defamation suit against Frank did cause Google to shut down his blog, which is documented about 1/3 of the way down this page: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/tag/frank-sfarzo/ That is repressive enough in itself to make an unfavorable impression. I don't think anyone is ever going to know whether or not Mignini was behind the other incident, because if he was, he did not reveal himself.

Besides, the incidents with Frank were in 2010 and 2011, I believe. There had already been a couple of American newsmagazine shows on network television in 2008 and 2009. In April of 2009, Doug Preston described on TV how he had been interrogated by Mignini (he had told the story a few years earlier in a print magazine). That same show is also where many people first learned about the psychic, Gabriella Carlizzi. I can't remember if Candace was featured in those shows, but I know Frank wasn't.

 

[acbytesla]

You should cite scientific literature, not forensic manuals.
Manuals are not science.

You mean manuals created by forensic programs at Universities doesn't count as scientific literature?? hmmmmmm..

 

[Machiavelli]

OK, you're right. It doesn't prove that it wasn't blood, but then again, the Luminol doesn't prove that it is. Both tests are "presumptive". One test suggest it might be, the other test suggests that it isn't.

STILL SEEMS LIKE A TIE and the score is ZERO.

The score is not zero. It would be zero is that was just one trivial stain identical to many others, with a 100 possible and probable banal origins, for which you can draw probable scenarios.
But this is a set bare footprints, originated by some extremely unusual event; moreover they are at a murder scene where there are other bare footprints proven to be in diluted blood; other luminol traces yielding mixed victim's+suspect's DNA in a room where they were not supposed to enter (and where a break appears to be staged); where the murderer(s) obviously washed themselves in a bathroom (barefoot); where there are other traces of mixed-DNA blood (proven presence of both suspect's+victim's blood); where there is obvious evidence of cleanup (clean floor with stained and wet bathmat, soaked towels, shoeprint washed away etc.); and where there is no alternative substance that would be positive to luminol (even less a substance that would be positive to luminol but not positive at TMB).

An also scientific literature (and manuals) that say: TMB may not work on diluted stains.

So sorry, the score is not zero.

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean manuals created by forensic programs at Universities doesn't count as scientific literature?? hmmmmmm..

I bet the Missouri State Police Patrol manual had just no previous citation in any academic work, by year 2011.

You will never find a citation of this stuff in an academic publication. This is not scientific literature.
Scientific literature is authored research, peer reviewed, specific and cited.

 

[charlatan]

You should cite scientific literature, not forensic manuals.
Manuals are not science.

Tell that to Berti and Barni. They cite several manuals.

 

[Mary_H]

I bet the Missouri State Police Patrol manual had just no previous citation in any academic work, by year 2011.

You will never find a citation of this stuff in an academic publication. This is not scientific literature.
Scientific literature is authored research, peer reviewed, specific and cited.

We know. Chris Halkides cites it all the time.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The "gap" between a highly diluted blood sample reacting positively to Luminol and reacting negatively is extremely small and VERY UNLIKELY. While still possible dismissing the NEGATIVE TMB test without a positive confirmatory test is NEVER called for.
(...)

The "narrow" gap might be like two magnitudes (100 times) or more.

But then, if you want to make a complete logical reasoning, you should talk about the amplitude of the "gap" consisting in the set substances that would react to luminol, but not to TMB.
How large is this number of substances? How big is this set?
Can you find even one substance with such property?

 

[MDDVS]

The score is not zero. It would be zero is that was just one trivial stain identical to many others, with a 100 possible and probable banal origins, for which you can draw probable scenarios.
But this is a set bare footprints, originated by some extremely unusual event; moreover they are at a murder scene where there are other bare footprints proven to be in diluted blood; other luminol traces yielding mixed victim's+suspect's DNA in a room where they were not supposed to enter (and where a break appears to be staged); where the murderer(s) obviously washed themselves in a bathroom (barefoot); where there are other traces of mixed-DNA blood (proven presence of both suspect's+victim's blood); where there is obvious evidence of cleanup (clean floor with stained and wet bathmat, soaked towels, shoeprint washed away etc.); and where there is no alternative substance that would be positive to luminol (even less a substance that would be positive to luminol but not positive at TMB).

An also scientific literature (and manuals) that say: TMB may not work on diluted stains.

So sorry, the score is not zero.

Where are the results of the confirmatory test proving that it is blood?

Even if it blood it could have been tracked around by the person seen in a picture stepping on a pool of blood.

 

[Machiavelli]

We know. Chris Halkides cites it all the time.

Literature says the opposite of what you claim.

 

[Strozzi]

Machiavelli, I would like to ask what this sentence which you wrote above refers to: "in a room where they were not supposed to enter"

I would regard it as normal for the various women sharing a house together to occasionally or infrequently enter their housemates' bedrooms - leaving shoeprints or, if barefoot, actual DNA. Meredith, barefroot, at some point could have stood at Amanda's door and chatted with her, and could reasonably have stepped into the room. She might at some time innocently borrowed or returned an item.

If I recall correctly, Laura allowed Amanda to borrow Laura's guitar. So I would not regard it as unusual if Amanda's shoeprint, sockprint, or barefoot left a print near Laura's bedroom door or in the bedroom if she fetched it or returned it.

 

[Mary_H]

Literature says the opposite of what you claim.

My claim is that Chris Halkides cites scientific literature.

My impression is that the pro-innocence side of the debate counts many more professional scientists among its numbers than does the pro-guilt side of the debate.

You probably don't believe in global climate change, either.

 

[LondonJohn]

However, you wrote that blood "oxidizes" Luminol and that hydrogen peroxide is a "catalyzer"....

*sigh*

Have you got anything constructive to say about the substance of my post?

By the way, how was your day in the Florence courtroom?

Tell us: in the opinion of the Carabinieri, a minimum of how many different amplifications/tests of the same source DNA are required to validate a match from low template DNA?

And how many separate amplifications/tests of the source DNA did not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni do again? I forget temporarily. I'm sure you ought to know. Do you know?

Or would you prefer to continue discussing old definitions of terms some more? I'm sure that will be both educational and informative, as regards the substance of the court processes of Knox and Sollecito

(BTW, I've already told you, you're either mistaken or lying when you allege that I said "blood oxidises Luminol". Blood (well, the heme ion in the haemoglobin in blood) catalyses the release of oxygen from peroxide, which in turn oxidises the Luminol (and the unstable oxidised product then spontaneously shifts electrons from an excited state down to ground state, causing the release of photons)).

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, Machiavelli, what do you think about the writings of Daniele Spisso on this case? Do you share any/many of his views by any chance?

 

[Bill Williams]

By the way, Machiavelli, what do you think about the writings of Daniele Spisso on this case? Do you share any/many of his views by any chance?

Just so that you can take care of it in one post, Machiavelli....

What do you think of Andrea Vogt's presumed acceptance as valid and admissible in the Nencini court of the Conti & Vecchiotti report commissioned by the Hellmann court?

Is Vecchiotti still a criminal?

Or is Andrea Vogt "an approximate reporter"?

 

[Bill Williams]

My claim is that Chris Halkides cites scientific literature.

My impression is that the pro-innocence side of the debate counts many more professional scientists among its numbers than does the pro-guilt side of the debate.

You probably don't believe in global climate change, either.

I'll go you one better, Mary_H. Can Machiavelli name one. While he's at it he might name a scientist who supports his claim that Amanda Knox can choose not to sleep, and can avoid the side effects of such a decision.

 

[Machiavelli]

Tell that to Berti and Barni. They cite several manuals.

No they cite just one handbook. And anyway, scientific research is find in scientific articles; manuals are, at best, just late comprehensive summaries (but may also just contain recommendations).

Anyway if you like manuals and textbooks you can have Gefrides L., Welch K., The Forensic Laboratory Handbook , 15 Procedures and Practice, Chapter 2: "Forensic Biology: Serology and DNA"; § 2.6.1 "Presumptive tests for blood":

(...) Some laboratories use PH [phenophthalein] together with TMB in a double presumptive test. TMB, which works in the same manner as PH, turns a blue-green color in the presence of blood. Although TMB is more specific than PH, meaning fewer false-positive results are indicated, it is less sensitive than PH and does not work as well on highly diluted blood stains.
....

Luminol is a chemical presumptive test that, instead of producing a color change reaction, causes stained areas to emit light which must be observed under ‘black’ light. Fluorescein also causes a light reaction (...)
Both tests are very sensitive and will indicate bloodstains that may not be visible. Positive areas should be marked and photographed immediately because the light reaction is not permanent and will fade. One disadvantage to these tests is that both can have false-positive reactions. Luminol and fluorescein will react with the same false positives as PH and also with bleach and other cleaning fluids, which may interfere with blood detection on surfaces that have been cleaned. For this reason, fluorescein-or luminol-positive areas should be retested with one of the color change presumptive tests. Another problem with the light-based tests is that they are typically used on very faint stains. Spraying a chemical onto an already weak stain may dilute the stain even further (...)

The manual, as you see, doesn't say remotely as much as an article would say.
But it says that TMB is used basically because of bleach and other cleaning fluids (which may contain bleach or may be anyway strong oxidants).
But with some further reserach you would learn nore about what these fluids actually are...

it also suggests TMB may have a more limited scope of use, and may not perform on highly diluted stains.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'll go you one better, Mary_H. Can Machiavelli name one. While he's at it he might name a scientist who supports his claim that Amanda Knox can choose not to sleep, and can avoid the side effects of such a decision.

I have been sleeping 5 hours over the last 72 hours.
Side effects do not include a repeated redaction and adjustment of multiple false testimonies accusing innocents.

 

[Machiavelli]

*sigh*

Have you got anything constructive to say about the substance of my post?

I might have; but it would have been nice if you avoided gratuitous attempts of being condescending and derogatory (disruptive) about other posters. Especially if your point are based on claims about alleged others' lack of scientific culture.

By the way, how was your day in the Florence courtroom?

Excellent.

Tell us: in the opinion of the Carabinieri, a minimum of how many different amplifications/tests of the same source DNA are required to validate a match from low template DNA?

The Carabinieri did not speak at all about "validation".
They talked about a "recommendation" and they said exactly the same thing Stefanoni said. Actually, they gave exactly the same answer Stefanoni gave, to basically the same question.
They said the procedure must be a "compromise" between strategies recommended to increase realiability and strategies to have practicability.
They said they performed two amplifications, instead of three or more, because they assessed that was te number of tests they could do.
Stafanoni said the same: she planned just one amplification, because with the equipment she had, she assessed that was the number of tests she could do.

And how many separate amplifications/tests of the source DNA did not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni do again? I forget temporarily. I'm sure you ought to know. Do you know?

I wish to recall you that your insulting of Stefanoni is unjustified and baseless, actually defamatory.

(BTW, I've already told you, you're either mistaken or lying when you allege that I said "blood oxidises Luminol". ... )

hmmm.... sure?
(And the "difference beween catalyzer and catalyst"? The catalyzer peroxide...?)

 

[moodstream]

She must have somehow really gotten under their skin, or at least under the skin of a few at the top, for there to have been no moment of doubt about her guilt. I do think that Mignini believes she killed Meredith . . . I just don't understand why he believes that.

ETA: "She must have really gotten under their skin" isn't meant to imply that there's something wrong with her or that she did something wrong, which I emphatically don't believe. I should have said it differently. Maybe: She must have been an unwitting catalyst to some of them. Their bizarre, intense reactions to a perfectly ordinary girl make no sense.

The crimes occurred against the background of growing concern in Italy that Satanism and the occult are becoming an attraction to the Italian youth. This refers not to the Kercher murder but to the Beasts of Satan murders, which seem to have been the Italian equivalent of the Manson murders. The arrests occurred in 2004, but the trials did not completely wrap up until 2008. The country was caught up with the belief that groups of youths were singling out victims for ritual killings.
So, while the motive given for murder by Massei, how did he phrase it, ‘acts of pure evil’ or whatever, sounds completely crazy to me, in the context of the times of the trial, it sort of makes sense.

 

[LondonJohn]

No they cite just one handbook.

*cough*

Machiavelli - and others - may care to look at the Bibliography on the final pages of the Carabinieri DNA report:

http://www.quotidianodellumbria.it/.../files/immagini/Perizia biologico-forense.pdf

I was going to copy and paste the bibliography, but it contains so many reference works (at least 50) that I thought it would be a waste of space here....

(Incidentally, it was exactly the concentration of US-centric references here that prompted the appeal court judge to ask the Carabinieri whether it was possible to reference non-US standards. Of course, some pro-guilt commentators mistakenly think this was a dig at C/V's bibliography, but of course they are wrong.)