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

[CoulsdonUK]

I am curious are Mignini or Stefanoni scheduled to appear as witnesses, can the defence or appeal court compel them to appear?

Have any charges in relation to this case been filed against either of them?

I am just trying to reconcile the ongoing discussion here with the remaining sessions in the appeal.

 

[acbytesla]

Come on, show us your respect of science, and mention a substance that reacts to luminol and not to TMB.

Please Machiavelli, don't be silly. The second presumptive test is performed to WEED OUT FALSE POSITIVES. WEED OUT FALSE POSITIVES, WEED OUT FALSE POSITIVES, WEED OUT FALSE POSITIVES.

The second presumptive test is NOT performed to be IGNORED!!! If for example, one doubted the negative test, it is imperative, IMPERATIVE, to prove that the negative is false.

Did Stefanoni perform a third presumptive test? Did she subject the substance to Phenolphthalein? No. Did she subject it to O-Tolidine? No. Leucomalachite Green? No. Did she do a confirmatory test? No.

 

[xinonix]

"carry a large kitchen knife back to your own apartment after you murdered someone? What for?"
Machievelli and the other guilters would say that Raffale was a knife collector, so a knife that was used to kill a person would be something Raffy L. would want in his collection.

 

[LondonJohn]

So Machiavelli is right. Patrizia Stefanoni is a Dr.

???

Well we all know she's a "Dr", but not in the sense of having a PhD or equivalent qualification.

You don't have to be PhD-qualified to author a research paper, by the way. Research papers from masters-level academics are common.

 

[katy_did]

It's your argument that is weak. The footprints showed a strong reaction to Luminol which eliminates the possibility of blood being too dilute to react to TMB.

Not sure this is correct, although I'm not totally sure because the source is Wiki...

It is important that the spraying be evenly applied to avoid a biased impression, such as blood traces appearing to be more concentrated in areas that received more spray. The intensity of the glow does not indicate the original amount present but indicates only the distribution of trace amounts of substances left in the area.

From this, it sounds like the intensity of the glow only shows the relative concentration of the substance, not the absolute amount: the more luminol you apply, the brighter the glow. In this case we know they over-applied the luminol, distorting the prints and further diluting whatever substance was there.

 

[Bill Williams]

"carry a large kitchen knife back to your own apartment after you murdered someone? What for?"
Machievelli and the other guilters would say that Raffale was a knife collector, so a knife that was used to kill a person would be something Raffy L. would want in his collection.

Someone somewhere floated a story that the landlord had inventoried the knives and unless they returned it the landlord would notice it was missing.

I'm actually afraid to check if this is Massei's reasoning. No matter. ... it's probably Mach's reasoning.

 

[RoseMontague]

???

Well we all know she's a "Dr", but not in the sense of having a PhD or equivalent qualification.

You don't have to be PhD-qualified to author a research paper, by the way. Research papers from masters-level academics are common.

It is a different Patrizia Stefanoni who is the doctor, LJ.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not sure this is correct, although I'm not totally sure because the source is Wiki...



From this, it sounds like the intensity of the glow only shows the relative concentration of the substance, not the absolute amount: the more luminol you apply, the brighter the glow. In this case we know they over-applied the luminol, distorting the prints and further diluting whatever substance was there.

The other thing is this: in the two-part TMB test, there are two different ways to get a negative for blood (well, the first is a true negative, and the second is an inconclusive): the first way is for both step one and step two to show negative -then you know you're looking at neither blood nor an oxidant of some sort (bleach, certain acids,etc); the other way is if you get a positive with step one - this means that oxidants are definitely present, but it's impossible to tell whether or not blood is also present.

In Stefanoni's case, however, it appears she might have used Hemastix (or equivalent) in any case - which in itself would have been the incorrect version of the TMB test to conduct following a positive Luminol test. If that's what happened, then a negative to Hemastix following a positive to Luminol would indeed imply that the Hemastix was showing a false negative due to too high a dilution of whatever product was present (whether blood, an oxidant, or a combination).

The correct thing to have done in any case would have been to do a confirmatory test for blood. She didn't.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is a different Patrizia Stefanoni who is the doctor, LJ.

I know

However, I wondered whether there might have been a suggestion that simply because "our" Stefanoni's name might have appeared on a research paper, that this in someway automatically implied that she was PhD-level.

All a bit embarrassing for Machiavelli though, anyhow. (Though he can comfort himself with the knowledge that this is only a peripheral issue anyhow - the important thing is just how badly she screwed up,regardless of any academic qualifications she might or might not possess...)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hemoglobin, immunoglobulins, and glycophorin

You perfectly know that confrmatory tests do not have even remotely the sensitivity of presumptive tests. Therefore, they would be expected to turn out negative.
And you also know that Stefanoni instead chose to use the samples to perform DNA tests, which are in fact more sensitive, and therefore they had a chance of turning a positive result.

Did you read my link before replying? These are not the days of the Takayama test; there are tests for hemoglobin and other biomolecules that are found in plasma or on the surface of red blood cells. The literature on their sensitivities is available to all.

 

[Skind]

Someone somewhere floated a story that the landlord had inventoried the knives and unless they returned it the landlord would notice it was missing.

Yeah, the landlord would notice a knife of some kind was missing...........in two years time when Rafaelle was moving out and the landlord was looking for any excuse to withhold the deposit.

The idea that a landlord (in anything other than a house-share) would bother to perform such checks on a regular basis does not sit with common behaviour of landlords.

There's simply no point in taking time out of your day to perform spot checks of all your residents unless you have a particular reason to do so.

Anyone who suggests that the landlord would notice a knife missing would have to; give a reason why the landlord was in the flat at all, why the landlord was looking in the drawer, why the landlord would remember the contents of all his/her customers cutlery drawer, why the landlord would have inventoried the drawer to such an extent that a particular knife could not have simply been replaced.

That's ON TOP OF the problems of why and how Knox managed to get the knife back to the flat.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not sure this is correct, although I'm not totally sure because the source is Wiki...



From this, it sounds like the intensity of the glow only shows the relative concentration of the substance, not the absolute amount: the more luminol you apply, the brighter the glow. In this case we know they over-applied the luminol, distorting the prints and further diluting whatever substance was there.

Also, it must be remembered that the police appear to have significantly overexposed the photographs of the Luminol results. If so, this is absolutely critical, as it would entirely distort the apparent level of luminescence.

As anyone who's ever worked with camera exposures before knows, a higher exposure (whether through longer shutter speed, larger aperture, or higher ISO) will ALWAYS make lights appear brighter, while having comparatively little effect on dark areas. Therefore, what one sees on a photograph might be very different indeed from what one might have seen with the naked eye.

My belief is that the Luminol traces were actually very feint, and that they deliberately pushed the exposures to get the "required" contrast. And that, in turn, would explain why Stefanoni might have got a negative back from a TMB test if she only used the one-step Hemastix version.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok Machiavelli.... Andrea Vogt is now not an "approximate reporter", she's an "intrepid reporter". It revolves around the trade screts of Greg Hampikian....

see: http://blogs.orrick.com/trade-secrets-watch/2013/11/08/the-role-of-alleged-trade-secret-forensic-evidence-in-the-amanda-knox-murder-case/#.Un2Nh8-cJUE.twitter

For five points.... how does this impugn the work of the RIS Carabinieri.... or is it really simply going after ANYONE who starts off as objective, finds the facts and THEN supports the cause of innocence?

Andrea Vogt, an intrepid American reporter based in Italy, tried to peel back the layers behind Hampikian’s numerous claims about how his forensic research helped free Amanda Knox. But when Vogt plowed through Italian court documents to find the evidence to back up Hampikian’s public statements about his direct involvement influencing the process, she came up empty. According to Trade Secrets Watch’s own review of the Italian court records, that’s because Hampikian did not submit any expert reports or provide written or oral testimony in any of the Italian appeal proceedings.

Undaunted, Vogt decided to go directly to the source. In February 2009, she sent an Idaho Public Records Law request to Boise State University, seeking all emails sent from Hampikian’s email account using certain key words (including Amanda Knox, the names of the judges involved in the case, and the names of the independent forensic experts who assessed the DNA evidence) to verify whether Hampikian had communications with the Italian judges and court-appointed forensic experts, and if so, to determine the nature of those communications. The request also sought all emails between Hampikian and Knox’s Italian lawyer, as well as copies of all consulting agreements for Hampikian.

BSU objected to the request in its entirety, asserting that the documents fell within enumerated exemptions to Idaho’s Public Records or Freedom of Information Act.

I take it you support Vogt on this, but are still now pretty miffed at her for supporting Conti & (that criminal) Vecchiotti....

.... which kind of makes it silly that she'd go after Greg Hampikian over a trade secrets issue....

 

[xinonix]

Plot for remake

So, When Manuela Comodi was in a meeting with Rudy, she listens to his story about how he needed to take a dump, and he put on the earphones with his iPod, because listening to soothing music helps him make, therefore he couldn't hear what was happening during the murder.
Comodi said " Cut the crap!, YOU killed her and we can prove it! You will be in prison for life. The only way you can avoid this is to get someone else to do your time.
The prosecutor has 2 other suspects he wants to convict. He is having a hard time because there is no evidence, no witness, and there is no reason why they would want to kill Ms Kercher. Testify that you and them were a trio who killed her during a sex game gone wrong.
You then will be only 1 of the 3 perpetrators, so we can get you a shorter sentence, if you do a fast track trial, and you co-opertate, you will be out on parole while you are still a young man."Rudy agrees to the deal.
The jury are people who were not smart enough to figure out a way to get out of serving jury duty, so Mignini was able to persuade them to believe this nonsense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah, the landlord would notice a knife of some kind was missing...........in two years time when Rafaelle was moving out and the landlord was looking for any excuse to withhold the deposit.

The idea that a landlord (in anything other than a house-share) would bother to perform such checks on a regular basis does not sit with common behaviour of landlords.

There's simply no point in taking time out of your day to perform spot checks of all your residents unless you have a particular reason to do so.

Anyone who suggests that the landlord would notice a knife missing would have to; give a reason why the landlord was in the flat at all, why the landlord was looking in the drawer, why the landlord would remember the contents of all his/her customers cutlery drawer, why the landlord would have inventoried the drawer to such an extent that a particular knife could not have simply been replaced.

That's ON TOP OF the problems of why and how Knox managed to get the knife back to the flat.

You get the five points!

The theory was that not only would he notice that "a" knife was missing, he would intuit, like that detective did with the most brilliant intuition since they solved the Reichstag Fire....

.... that the murder knife from a killing two years' previous was missing...

 

[LondonJohn]

Did you read my link before replying? These are not the days of the Takayama test; there are tests for hemoglobin and other biomolecules that are found in plasma or on the surface of red blood cells. The literature on their sensitivities is available to all.

No, no, no! According to Machiavelli, we should "perfectly (well) know that confirmatory tests do not have even remotely the sensitivity of presumptive tests" (my emphasis).

That sounds pretty definitive (and slightly condescending too), doesn't it! Therefore, you must be wrong, Chris!

 

[katy_did]

Also, it must be remembered that the police appear to have significantly overexposed the photographs of the Luminol results. If so, this is absolutely critical, as it would entirely distort the apparent level of luminescence.

As anyone who's ever worked with camera exposures before knows, a higher exposure (whether through longer shutter speed, larger aperture, or higher ISO) will ALWAYS make lights appear brighter, while having comparatively little effect on dark areas. Therefore, what one sees on a photograph might be very different indeed from what one might have seen with the naked eye.

My belief is that the Luminol traces were actually very feint, and that they deliberately pushed the exposures to get the "required" contrast. And that, in turn, would explain why Stefanoni might have got a negative back from a TMB test if she only used the one-step Hemastix version.

Very good point. The combination of over-applying the luminol and over-exposing the photographs (assuming they did the former and it wasn't just a result of the over-exposure) would have totally distorted the appearance of the footprints. Interesting info about the TMB test as well.

 

[christianahannah]

It is a different Patrizia Stefanoni who is the doctor, LJ.

Here is a publication Stefanoni has contributed to. There may be more than this one and there may be other search tables which can be used to locate other publications. Since I am rather deficient in most things concerning science I will leave it up to you to search further.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875176811001168

Probably an interesting read if you are into that sort of thing.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am curious are Mignini or Stefanoni scheduled to appear as witnesses, can the defence or appeal court compel them to appear?

Guesses: Mignini, no... Stefanoni, yes... and, yes, both sides (I believe) can compel them to appear, which is actually the judge who does the compelling. If the judge refuses, then no, neother side can compel. Mignini could have the defence team charged with defamation for asking delicate questions, Stefanoni not so much.

But remember the primary task of the defence (perhaps the only task) is to prevent their own clients from going to jail. They are not prosecutors of Mignini or Stefanoni, all they need do is debunk their theories. Stefanoni is hanging by a thread, even you have to admit that. On the other hand, if a PM of jurisdiction believes a crime has been committed, they are compelled to investigate.

Just like Comodi did when Knox accused the cops at interrogation of hitting her. She pulled in Ficara. She asked, "Did you hit Knox?" Ficara said, "No." Summoning all the powers of objectivity she could Comodi dropped it, right there right then.

That's how it works in Italy.

Have any charges in relation to this case been filed against either of them?

No. I might want to add "not yet", but you'd roll your eyes. C'mon C-UK... you know you would!

I am just trying to reconcile the ongoing discussion here with the remaining sessions in the appeal.

As are we all.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, the landlord would notice a knife of some kind was missing...........in two years time when Rafaelle was moving out and the landlord was looking for any excuse to withhold the deposit.

The idea that a landlord (in anything other than a house-share) would bother to perform such checks on a regular basis does not sit with common behaviour of landlords.

There's simply no point in taking time out of your day to perform spot checks of all your residents unless you have a particular reason to do so.

Anyone who suggests that the landlord would notice a knife missing would have to; give a reason why the landlord was in the flat at all, why the landlord was looking in the drawer, why the landlord would remember the contents of all his/her customers cutlery drawer, why the landlord would have inventoried the drawer to such an extent that a particular knife could not have simply been replaced.

That's ON TOP OF the problems of why and how Knox managed to get the knife back to the flat.

Well,in fairness, if Knox and Sollecito HAD used that knife in the attack on Meredith (they didn't, but suppose they had for a moment) then disposed of it, it's feasible to suggest that they might have feared the following train of events: 1) they come under police suspicion; 2) the police ask to see/examine all the knives they have in their possession; 3) Sollecito either a) omits mention of the kitchen knife altogether, or b) claims to have lost or broken it prior to 1st November; 4) the police check with the landlord, who (as known to Sollecito) has an inventory; 5) the landlord confirms that there is a knife missing as per the inventory.

If Sollecito had answered (a) in step three, then he's obviously in trouble immediately; If he'd answered (b), he still faces trouble as it clearly looks suspicious on its face, plus it's entirely possible that the cleaning lady might tell the police that yes, the knife was still there just days before the murder because she washed it and put it away (or just saw it in the drawer). Sollecito might anticipate this in his (b) strategy, and might therefore claim to have lost or broken the knife just days before the murder - but it should be obvious that the closeness of the alleged loss/breakage to the time of the murder would look like too much to be coincidence.


So, in conclusion, I actually CAN see why a guilty Sollecito (and Knox) might feel they had no option but to replace the knife in the drawer: buying a replacement would be fraught with risk, and trying to bluff out its absence as described above would also be very risky and could backfire drastically.

However, all this is only relevant in the context of the knife being positively linked to the murder in the first place. It's not linked to the murder any longer, and it never should have been. So the discussion about why they would have chosen to "replace" the knife in Sollecito's kitchen is irrelevant, since there's now as much evidence (i.e. none) that this knife was used in the murder than there is of Mignini's wife's favourite paring knife having been used in the murder.