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

[lane99]

Say what?

Is it correct that Andrea Vogt's latest web-article states categorically that the knife with Knox's DNA on it is the murder weapon?

If not, what does she mean when she writes: "It is the murder weapon..."?

 

[Machiavelli]

BTW, the bare footprints were not originated by an extremely unusual event. We have no idea what originated the bare footprints. POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, my friend. You are drawing a false causal link.

My friend, evidence is an a contrario logical process. It does not proceed in one way, it proceeds in two directions.
You have no authority to establish any causal order, whan you don't actually have any scenario. If you have "no idea", there is no probable or usual scenario.
The rest of the logical links and the evidence, analogies coincidences etc., you are just swweeping everything under the carpet.
You have no argument.

The simple truth is that we can assume that
WITHOUT A POSITIVE CONFIRMATORY TEST....A NEGATIVE PRESUMPTIVE TEST is AUTHORITATIVE.

Ridiculous. A presumptive test becomes "authority" and should replace human intelligence...

 

[Machiavelli]

So, things between you two are not going well, then..... you answered about Barbie Nadeau.....

Things.. going? Where? I am not a close friend of Andrea Vogt. I have no particular relation. Who cares about "things" between us? I actually don't even know what she wrote about this late hearing.

I always considered her as a more accurate, higher quality reporter than Barbie Nadeau on this particular case. That's all.

 

[acbytesla]

My friend, evidence is an a contrario logical process. It does not proceed in one way, it proceeds in two directions.
You have no authority to establish any causal order, whan you don't actually have any scenario. If you have "no idea", there is no probable or usual scenario.
The rest of the logical links and the evidence, analogies coincidences etc., you are just swweeping everything under the carpet.
You have no argument.

Ridiculous. A presumptive test becomes "authority" and should replace human intelligence...

Evidence is simply a fact. It's connection to a crime is based on science and logic. There is none with the bare footprints given the NEGATIVE TMB test and non-existent confirmatory test.

The only thing ridiculous is your argument that a negative presumptive test should be ignored without a confirmatory test.

 

[Bill Williams]

Things.. going? Where? I am not a close friend of Andrea Vogt. I have no particular relation. Who cares about "things" between us? I actually don't even know what she wrote about this late hearing.

I always considered her as a more accurate, higher quality reporter than Barbie Nadeau on this particular case. That's all.

If you knew what she was reporting, you may revise your opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is it correct that Andrea Vogt's latest web-article states categorically that the knife with Knox's DNA on it is the murder weapon?

If not, what does she mean when she writes: "It is the murder weapon..."?

This may be a sloppy rendering on her part. She may have meant this to be a rhetorical question; "Is this the murder weapon?"

Otherwise the sentence simply does not fit in what she wrote. If she contradictorily still thinks this the murder weapon, she is alone among journalists.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

(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.)

Absolutely not. It was Dalla Vedova who brought up the issue (I think in order to suggest a "higher" authority of some experts), so he first elicited a 'perplexed' response by Barni and Berti, who told him the references are actually not "foreign" but "international" from the scientific community, then he repeated the question and this time Nencini lectured him like a dull child, explaining again, that "international" does not equate to "foreigneers". Not content of this, Dalla Vedova insisted pointing out instead an alleged greater authority of some American institutes (emphasized again the concept of foreign, American, and not international, is better), at that point Nencini cut it and tured to Barni and Berti asking them: listen, would you be able to perform reliable tests without American sources? B&B answered "of course". And Dalla Vedova looked like an idiot, because his obtained an answer opposite to what he was seeking.
Nadeau was correct on this: Dalla Vedova had a wrong approach in his questions to B&B, he asked wrong things on multiple points - not just this one - and his attitude just backfired several times.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did not the RIS Carabinieri just confirm the essence of C&V to Nencini's court?

Not even in your dreams.

You, then, stand alone among people who were in the courtroom. Even Andrea Vogt, who you do not know, was there in the courtroom with you... she seems to now think that the RIS Carabinieri have confirmed C&V and have completely dispatched Stefanoni's results to the junk heap.

You say that her reporting is better than Nadeau's, but strangely you do not know her reporting on the very same day in court she witnessed. Strange. You both do know that Nadeau still has her gig with CNN.....

 

[Machiavelli]

Evidence is simply a fact.

Evidence is a logical process not a fact.

It's connection to a crime is base on science abd logic. There is none with the bare footprints given the NEGATIVE TMB test and non-existent confirmatory test.

It's just false. There is just an extremely strong connection anyway, also without confirmatory tests and with negative TMB test.
And your "no idea" about their origin is one of the elements of such connection.

 

[moodstream]

Fair enough... A negative TMB test means that we can presume it wasn't blood. And without additional information, that is the right thing to do. That is the very definition of a presumptive test.

I have a question about luminol and the TMB. Aren't the chances that every single tmb test would come back negative if the lumiol was decting blood extraordinarily low? And, if the TMB doesn't register the blood because it is so incredibly diluted, isn't it almost certain to be from a single source, deposited in just one walk? And, if this is so, isn't the most likely source by far the bathroom, where after showering Knox may have stepped on the bathmat and picked up trace amounts of blood?

Are there alternatives to these choices?

 

[MDDVS]

It's not blood, it's turnip juice. See, it's easy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli.... get some sleep.... I'm serious.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have a question about luminol and the TMB. Aren't the chances that every single tmb test would come back negative if the lumiol was decting blood extraordinarily low? And, if the TMB doesn't register the blood because it is so incredibly diluted, isn't it almost certain to be from a single source, deposited in just one walk? And, if this is so, isn't the most likely source by far the bathroom, where after showering Knox may have stepped on the bathmat and picked up trace amounts of blood?

Are there alternatives to these choices?

Sure. Maybe they came from people walking on the floor after it had been mopped and had dried unevenly. Any number of alternatives are possible, but nobody knows, so we can only guess.

From the distribution of the prints, it seems unlikely they were made by Amanda after she showered. Also, there seem to be two different foot sizes involved.

There's a reason why they do the TMB. LJ explained it perfectly the other day.

If they weren't sure after the TMB, they could have followed up with other tests or examined the samples under a microscope. The fact that they didn't do this suggests they knew it wasn't blood. But they needed evidence, and they didn't have good evidence, so they made do with bad evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

Evidence is a logical process not a fact.

It's just false. There is just an extremely strong connection anyway, also without confirmatory tests and with negative TMB test.
And your "no idea" about their origin is one of the elements of such connection.

NO ONE has an idea about their origin. Not me, not you, not any one.

Making a logical connection between the crime when the available scientific evidence points away from such a connection is not only absurd, it is wrong.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

 

[moodstream]

Sure. Maybe they came from people walking on the floor after it had been mopped and had dried unevenly. Any number of alternatives are possible, but nobody knows, so we can only guess.

From the distribution of the prints, it seems unlikely they were made by Amanda after she showered. Also, there seem to be two different foot sizes involved.

There's a reason why they do the TMB. LJ explained it perfectly the other day.

If they weren't sure after the TMB, they could have followed up with other tests or examined the samples under a microscope. The fact that they didn't do this suggests they knew it wasn't blood. But they needed evidence, and they didn't have good evidence, so they made do with bad evidence.

Thanks !

 

[acbytesla]

I have a question about luminol and the TMB. Aren't the chances that every single tmb test would come back negative if the lumiol was decting blood extraordinarily low? And, if the TMB doesn't register the blood because it is so incredibly diluted, isn't it almost certain to be from a single source, deposited in just one walk? And, if this is so, isn't the most likely source by far the bathroom, where after showering Knox may have stepped on the bathmat and picked up trace amounts of blood?

Are there alternatives to these choices?

It doesn't really work that way and in this case the Luminol lit up pretty well. Chances are that if the TMB gave a false negative it was not because of the dilution of the blood, but the age of the TMB in the tech's kit.

It is my understanding while there is always the possibilities of a false negative, they are unlikely and extremely difficult to quantify. Mostly because TMB degrades over time, the mixture and strength of the chemicals, etc. etc.

Normally the process goes like this. The tech takes a cotton swab and rubs it against the area believed to be blood and then then cotton swab is placed in a test tube, then TMB is added to the tube and then finally Hydrogen Peroxide is added. If after the Hydrogen Peroxide is added the swab changes color then the sample is "presumed" to be be blood and then a confirmatory test is required.
So, the amount of TMB and Hydrogen Peroxide is pretty much different from test to test. This is a field test, but it is an extremely accurate test and discounting it's results is ridiculous. But if a tech for example notices that the TMB is really old, then it is incumbent upon the tech to prove that it is a false negative.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure. Maybe they came from people walking on the floor after it had been mopped and had dried unevenly. Any number of alternatives are possible, but nobody knows, so we can only guess.

From the distribution of the prints, it seems unlikely they were made by Amanda after she showered. Also, there seem to be two different foot sizes involved.

There's a reason why they do the TMB. LJ explained it perfectly the other day.

If they weren't sure after the TMB, they could have followed up with other tests or examined the samples under a microscope. The fact that they didn't do this suggests they knew it wasn't blood. But they needed evidence, and they didn't have good evidence, so they made do with bad evidence.

Great explanation Charlie..you sort of ninja'd me there...but I agree with everything..

 

[Dan O.]

Spinning lies at Mach-Zero

But this is a set bare footprints

This is a lie. The only set here is the group of items that the ILE chose to record while using the Luminol. A couple have shapes that could be bare feet but most are just blobs. That they missed at least one known bloody shoe print shows that there was probably a confirmation bias looking for bare feet. That they had heard from Amanda just the previous day that she had been in that hall with bare feet after showering and stepping on the bloody bathmat shows just how far the corrupt police will go to get a conviction.

originated by some extremely unusual event;

This is simply fabricated by Machiavelli. There has been no determination of the origin of these prints/blobs.

moreover they are at a murder scene where there are other bare footprints proven to be in diluted blood;

Can we say irrelevant and a lie. There was the one footprint on the bathmat that proved to be Meredith's blood. All the other bloody footprints at the scene are from the shoes admitted to be worn by Rudy. There is nothing connecting the bathmat print to any of the Luminol spots (including those on top of the investigators booties). None of the bare footprints that produced a DNA profile tested positive for blood with TMB. The exception was the Luminol print in the hall that was classified as a shoe print. The shoe portion of that print is part of a continuous chain of prints attributed to Rudy starting in the murder room, passing by the front door and ending in front of the couch. And interestingly, even though the print had been expertly scrubbed away by Stefanoni and her cleaning maids, it still shows up with Luminol (though not as bright as the rest of the stain) and still tested positive with TMB. This proves that the TMB test is capable of detecting blood at levels below those of the Luminol prints.

other luminol traces yielding mixed victim's+suspect's DNA in a room where they were not supposed to enter

More of the same irrelevant and lie. A splotch much like one would get wringing out a wet towel, is not linked to the murder except by the coincidence of being discovered afterwards. The lie being the part about "not supposed to enter". Filomena had instructed Amanda to "check the house" that very morning of the discovery.

(and where a break appears to be staged);

This meme has reach the level of a lie. The time required to simulate the break in in such intricate detail breaks credibility. The only way that scene could be created is to throw the rock through the window from the outside. That means stepping outside where one is visible to passing motorists and pedestrians, tossing the rock breaking the window and making a lot of noise which could cause someone to call the police, then going back inside to move clothes on top of the glass where they would be trapped if the police showed up.

where the murderer(s) obviously washed themselves in a bathroom (barefoot);

One convicted murder admitted leaving the cottage with wet pants. Your pluralization is a lie.

where there are other traces of mixed-DNA blood (proven presence of both suspect's+victim's blood);

Did Stefanony claim to have separated out only the white blood cells found in the trace and tested those finding mixed DNA? Of course not. You are simply lying about what was found.

where there is obvious evidence of cleanup (clean floor with stained and wet bathmat, soaked towels, shoeprint washed away etc.);

Or maybe there is simply a clean floor with a stained and wet bathmat that perfectly fits a scenario that doesn't involve any cleanup.

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).

Are you going to prove that? Even the junior woodchucks forensics manual says it's not known to be blood until there has been a positive confirmatory test.

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

That's something that could be scientifically tested. Is there a dilution level for blood that gives a strong Luminol response and yet tests negative to TMB? Let us know when you have your results. And don't try to hide the raw data.

So sorry, the score is not zero.

The score is indeed Mach credibility zero. But then we already knew that because we've been over these same talking points many times (Ex. CP1: [Post 10512], [Post 16473], [Post 13472], [Post 14960], [Post 15012], [Post 18678], [Post 19252]; CP3: [Post 11581], [Post 1843]; CP5: [Post 6239], [Post 7504]; CP6: [Post 735], [Post 2161]). You simply disappear for a while and come back spamming the same swill as if it had never been discussed before. And are you ever going to find the time to address the points I brought up way way back on page 53?

 

[moodstream]

It doesn't really work that way and in this case the Luminol lit up pretty well. Chances are that if the TMB gave a false negative it was not because of the dilution of the blood, but the age of the TMB in the tech's kit.

It is my understanding while there is always the possibilities of a false negative, they are unlikely and extremely difficult to quantify. Mostly because TMB degrades over time, the mixture and strength of the chemicals, etc. etc.

Normally the process goes like this. The tech takes a cotton swab and rubs it against the area believed to be blood and then then cotton swab is placed in a test tube, then TMB is added to the tube and then finally Hydrogen Peroxide is added. If after the Hydrogen Peroxide is added the swab changes color then the sample is "presumed" to be be blood and then a confirmatory test is required.
So, the amount of TMB and Hydrogen Peroxide is pretty much different from test to test. This is a field test, but it is an extremely accurate test and discounting it's results is ridiculous. But if a tech for example notices that the TMB is really old, then it is incumbent upon the tech to prove that it is a false negative.

Thanks for your answer!

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks for your answer!

My pleasure. Thanks for the question...sometimes I can answer them...