Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Maybe based on the literature that you have read in the last two days.
But there is literature about luminol being far more sensitive than TMB without ascorbic or citric acid or other equivalent reducents, and its being more specific. Reducents are very common on living organisms including human beings, since the body defends its tissues though anti-oxidizing agents; not to speak about that strong chemical reductant called THC (Cannabis) that Knox and Sollecito had assumed in significant amount that day. But his is irrelevant: researches found that luminol is just more sensitive than TMB and more specific, full stop.
There is for example - but it's just an example - this article:

S. Tobe; N. Watson; Nic Dae´id – “ Evaluation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood, Their Specificity, Sensitivity, and Effect on High Molecular-Weight DNA” - (2007)



It is worth reading; I just quote a table about compared specificities of luminol (left) and TMB (right). NR = no reaction; in brackets the number of positive samples of a total of 25; out of brackets the number of minutes. Dilution is probably 1:10'000 but I'm not sure should read again for that figure.





The number of minutes within the reaction needs to be 1 or less for TMB to be declared a positive result. There is a list of substances reacting with luminol and TMB. In parentheses the number of positive results out of 25 samples. For example, tomato gave positive reaction to TMB on 23 samples out of 25; while luminol gave no reaction (“NR”). Red onion yielded 21 positive results to TMB.

Interestingly, chlorine was found non reactive to luminol. Authors assume this is because sample stains were all 18 hours "old". Sodium hypochlorite solution is believed to loose its property of triggering luminol reaction as the time passes due to evaporation.

I see you found Tobe et al again. Last time around I told you why Tobe didn't get reactions from materials you known damn well from other papers will get a false positive with luminol.

Tobe didn't cheat, but his findings puzzled even you--remember? The last paper sums it up pretty well near the end of page 5:

Webb et al. [22] conducted a study where the luminol test was compared to four other forensic blood tests. These tests where phenolphthalein, LMG, Hemastix (Bayer) and a forensic light source. The luminol test used was found to have by far the greatest sensitivity. Under laboratorial conditions CL was detected from luminol treated stains of the used hemoglobin solution (corresponding to blood) diluted up to 5·10⁶ times. A comparably high sensitivity of the luminol test has been reported in other studies [22].

However the sensitivity is probably not as great under the conditions found at a crime scene and here, depending on several factors, perhaps one may “only” see blood diluted to about 1:10000 [14].
​

'Lab conditions' which allow for those ungody sensitivities include LI goggles to discern the reactions. If you look at the materials section in Tobe you won't find he used those goggles, just 'near or total darkness' as I believe he put it. If you go to the results section and look at his charts, as I recall you'll find he didn't show any greater sensitivity for luminol than he did TMB, they both bottomed out at about 10k:1. That's because he wasn't wearing the goggles and couldn't detect the reactions at lower levels--or with those items that give off weak CL glows with luminol. Thus luminol is only more specific employed like that because the reaction of those other items can't be detected...and neither can blood at those very diluted states. So it's actually not any more sensitive for blood than TMB under those conditions.

 

[MDDVS]

Well, but rotation would be a proof that the Sun does not revolve.

Fair enough. It's just that if you're talking about direct evidence, there's direct evidence for translation.

 

[MDDVS]

Still, we want to see prove for blood. Galileo needed to prove his theory, you need to prove yours, thaat's how it works. In other words, he was lucky his intuition was right.

 

[Desert Fox]

'Lab conditions' which allow for those ungody sensitivities include LI goggles to discern the reactions. If you look at the materials section in Tobe you won't find he used those goggles, just 'near or total darkness' as I believe he put it. If you go to the results section and look at his charts, as I recall you'll find he didn't show any greater sensitivity for luminol than he did TMB, they both bottomed out at about 10k:1. That's because he wasn't wearing the goggles and couldn't detect the reactions at lower levels--or with those items that give off weak CL glows with luminol. Thus luminol is only more specific employed like that because the reaction of those other items can't be detected...and neither can blood at those very diluted states. So it's actually not any more sensitive for blood than TMB under those conditions.

If I remember correctly, the luminol gave a strong reaction in the cottage. If luminol gives a strong reaction then TMB should also give a strong reaction if it was actually blood. That argues that it is not blood.

 

[Kaosium]

If I remember correctly, the luminol gave a strong reaction in the cottage. If luminol gives a strong reaction then TMB should also give a strong reaction if it was actually blood. That argues that it is not blood.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Machiavelli]

If I remember correctly, the luminol gave a strong reaction in the cottage. If luminol gives a strong reaction then TMB should also give a strong reaction if it was actually blood. That argues that it is not blood.

No, you should cut the condition "if it was actually blood", unless you find an alternative substance that fits the required properties.

Ps btw, I'm the downstairs apartment and also in Sollecito's aparment there are some blood stains that turned out a negative TMB test. Among them a blood stain on Knox's pillow from her ear, some "cat" blood drops on stairs.

 

[Numbers]

Direct evidence of earth rotation is actually possible, through measurement of: 1) Ferrel law, 2) Coriolis force, 3) force of gravity latitude gradient. Also earth revolution can be shown directly by triangulation measurements. In fact direct evidence would require knowledge about gravity and other technical equipment Galileo didn't have (thus he developed some erroneous "direct" demonstrations, such as the tidal movement). It was impossible to have a direct evidence at his time.
It may happen that direct evidence is impractical to achieve or impossible.

That Jupiter had moons and Venus had phases is an example of indirect, therefore circumstantial evidence. It's an analogy. It's like looking at a diluted print in blood, and make an inference about a latent print in luminol both on the same crime scene.

Galiei published a divulgative science book in Italian supporting such circumstantial evidence. The Church decided that unless he had direct evidence, he should stick to supporting the opposing theory.

Mach,
All of your bits of evidence (Ferrel law, Coriolis effect, gravitational variation) are all examples of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. That is, there is an inference required between the observable evidence and the conclusion; none of these are DIRECT evidence of the earth's rotation. Possibly the closest to DIRECT evidence easily achievable on earth is Foucault's pendulum; but even this simple demonstration really requires inference. And it would not show any rotation if positioned directly at one of the poles.

The evidence that Galileo produced did not and could not "prove" the heliocentric theory; it suggested that the heliocentric theory was more correct - a better approximation of reality - than the earth-centric theory. No scientific evidence ever "proves" (in the mathematical sense) anything; any such evidence at best supports the relative accuracy of one description of nature over others. There are true proofs in, for example, mathematical physics; but they are accurate in terms of nature only for those realms where the assumptions are reasonably valid (thus, Newtonian physics math does not adequately describe relativistic phenomena).

In terms of luminol testing for blood, one CANNOT infer that any luminol fluorescence is the result of blood UNLESS one RULES OUT all other causes or RULES IN blood on the basis of a highly SPECIFIC test such as an antigen-antibody test. Your association of many other extraneous elements with the luminol "footprints" allegedly made by Amanda Knox in an attempt to create a probative scenario is fallacious, because there are many innocent explanations for those "footprints." For example, the soil around Perugia has heavy concentrations of umber, an iron oxide-containing mixture; household cleansers such as used to clean bathtubs have bleach-like ingredients; both Amanda and Meredith were lightening their hair - and luminol fluorescence may be triggered by chemicals in the lightener; nor is there any evidence to indicate the age of these "footprints" - some of which look more like indistinct blobs.

 

[Desert Fox]

No, you should cut the condition "if it was actually blood", unless you find an alternative substance that fits the required properties.

Ps btw, I'm the downstairs apartment and also in Sollecito's aparment there are some blood stains that turned out a negative TMB test. Among them a blood stain on Knox's pillow from her ear, some "cat" blood drops on stairs.

I have posted the book, authors, page, and quote of a forensic manual which stated clearly that luminol must be confirmed to be human blood.
I also posted information, which takes 30 second on Wiki, that Perugia is rich in luminol triggering materials. As a result, I highly question your personal integrity.

 

[Samson]

Mach,
All of your bits of evidence (Ferrel law, Coriolis effect, gravitational variation) are all examples of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. That is, there is an inference required between the observable evidence and the conclusion; none of these are DIRECT evidence of the earth's rotation. Possibly the closest to DIRECT evidence easily achievable on earth is Foucault's pendulum; but even this simple demonstration really requires inference. And it would not show any rotation if positioned directly at one of the poles.

The evidence that Galileo produced did not and could not "prove" the heliocentric theory; it suggested that the heliocentric theory was more correct - a better approximation of reality - than the earth-centric theory. No scientific evidence ever "proves" (in the mathematical sense) anything; any such evidence at best supports the relative accuracy of one description of nature over others. There are true proofs in, for example, mathematical physics; but they are accurate in terms of nature only for those realms where the assumptions are reasonably valid (thus, Newtonian physics math does not adequately describe relativistic phenomena).

In terms of luminol testing for blood, one CANNOT infer that any luminol fluorescence is the result of blood UNLESS one RULES OUT all other causes or RULES IN blood on the basis of a highly SPECIFIC test such as an antigen-antibody test. Your association of many other extraneous elements with the luminol "footprints" allegedly made by Amanda Knox in an attempt to create a probative scenario is fallacious, because there are many innocent explanations for those "footprints." For example, the soil around Perugia has heavy concentrations of umber, an iron oxide-containing mixture; household cleansers such as used to clean bathtubs have bleach-like ingredients; both Amanda and Meredith were lightening their hair - and luminol fluorescence may be triggered by chemicals in the lightener; nor is there any evidence to indicate the age of these "footprints" - some of which look more like indistinct blobs.

Numbers, a simpleton would point out that these things are proven to have happened in this order.

1. Meredith was murdered.
2. There was blood and dna in the bathroom afterwards.
3. Amanda had a shower, barefooted on the morning of the 2nd.
4. Many people trampled the precinct.
5. The body was discovered.

How does evidence suggesting 3. happened misalign with Amanda's narrative for the last seven years?

The fact that you and others must labour every detail, and yet make no progress with guilters speaks volumes for their lack of integrity.

 

[Numbers]

But your reasoning is wrong. The lack of a 100% confirmation does not make a piece of circumstantial evidence disappear.
Your comparison with Galileo is egregiously erroneous: it was in fact Galileo who was not able to confirm Copernicus' theory. He had evidence, but was circumstantial evidence. Though, the Church stated that he may not draw such conclusion and only stick to the theory within divulgative books, unless he had a 100% certain confirmation.

It was the Church who said - like you (!) - that if you don't have a direct proof, than you must assume the opposite conclusion.
It was the Church request of a "confirmatory test" that was logically crap. Galileo's "holistic" ("osmotic") approach was correct. He had valid circumstantial evidence for supporting the theory, albeit he lacked a complete experimental confirmation.

Mach,
The "evidence" has not disappeared, but the PROBATIVE value of the evidence is reduced - to ZERO in this case, since the "footprints" in question were shown by Stefanoni NOT to be blood. Thus, in many US jurisdictions, the luminol "evidence" WITHOUT confirmation with a highly SPECIFIC blood test, would not be admitted.

When Galileo discovered the phases of Venus, by inference, he established that Venus revolves around the sun, NOT the earth. This was a DISPROOF of the earth-centric theory. When a scientific theory is disproven, it must be modified or discarded (in favor of a theory that better fits the data, if such a theory is available).

When Galileo discovered the 4 largest moons of Jupiter REVOLVING around Jupiter, he demonstrated that some heavenly bodies were circling another body which was NOT the earth. This was a DISPROOF of the earth-centric theory, which held that all other bodies in the heavens revolve about the earth.

Thus, in pursuit of your illogic, you have attributed to me a quite humorous and false proposition. If you are at all arguing in good faith, which of course I do not whatsoever believe, you would appreciate the incredible degree of embarrassment you should feel at your absurd statements.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, you should cut the condition "if it was actually blood", unless you find an alternative substance that fits the required properties.

Ps btw, I'm the downstairs apartment and also in Sollecito's aparment there are some blood stains that turned out a negative TMB test. Among them a blood stain on Knox's pillow from her ear, some "cat" blood drops on stairs.

I have posted the book, authors, page, and quote of a forensic manual which stated clearly that luminol must be confirmed to be human blood.
I also posted information, which takes 30 second on Wiki, that Perugia is rich in luminol triggering materials. As a result, I highly question your personal integrity.

Machiavelli's reasoning works like this:

1) A man goes to a hospital complaining of headache, convinced he has a brain tumour
2) He insists that he gets an MRI
3) Upon interviewing him, they discover he'd ate a lot of ice cream previously to coming into the hospital.
4) the suggest to him that he really has an ice-cream headache, and thus forgo the MRI
5) The man says, "What's that got to do with it, you have not ruled out that I have a brain tumour".​

Thus Machiavelli has proven that the man has a brain tumour.

The thing is this: in the courts in Italy, Machiavelli's side is winning. Why, then, does someone like M. have to come on to obscure Skeptic forums to peddle this sort of reason, to uphold court decisions in which they are winning?

 

[Numbers]

Here's an example of what happens when a blood confirmation test is not disclosed (official misconduct).

From:
Review: Biological Evidence Collection and Forensic Blood Identification, by
Diana M. Castro, M.S. and Heather Miller Coyle, Ph.D.
http://www.identacode.org/Castro_Review_Biological_Evidence_2011.pdf

As with all scientific testing, care must be taken in the testing process or errors will occur. In 1993, Gregory F. Taylor was convicted in Wake County Criminal Superior Court of the first-degree murder of Jaquetta Thomas and sentenced to life in prison [19]. On September 3 and 4th, 2009 Taylor’s case was accepted for formal evaluation before the Innocence Inquiry Commission. In this case, the testimony of a laboratory analyst stated there were “chemical indications for the presence of blood” on parts of Taylor’s vehicle. When questioned by Wake Country Assistant District Attorney, the analyst stated in addition to conducting less sensitive presumptive tests for possible blood on items associated with Taylor’s vehicle, he had also conducted more sensitive confirmatory tests on those same items.

The analyst then disclosed his lab notes, which indicated the results of the confirmatory tests for blood were actually negative, a fact never mentioned in the final official laboratory report or at trial testimony. The misrepresentation of blood presumptive test results as being confirmatory for human blood identification led to a substantial independent audit of the laboratory practices and policy. This case illustrates the absolute need for constant training in blood identification methods as well as the value of auditing laboratories and their staff for the justice system.

 

[anglolawyer]

I see Mach is falling back on his 'circumstantial evidence' thing again. Never mind the science, (suppressed) negative TMB results, inexplicable (is it?) absence of confirmatory tests and all that crap. The ISC has explained that any piece of crap evidence can be shored up by other bits of same provided we give the process of summation a fancy name, like 'osmosis'. Or how about 'bias'?

 

[Planigale]

Maybe based on the literature that you have read in the last two days.
But there is literature about luminol being far more sensitive than TMB without ascorbic or citric acid or other equivalent reducents, and its being more specific. Reducents are very common on living organisms including human beings, since the body defends its tissues though anti-oxidizing agents; not to speak about that strong chemical reductant called THC (Cannabis) that Knox and Sollecito had assumed in significant amount that day. But his is irrelevant: researches found that luminol is just more sensitive than TMB and more specific, full stop.
There is for example - but it's just an example - this article:

S. Tobe; N. Watson; Nic Dae´id – “ Evaluation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood, Their Specificity, Sensitivity, and Effect on High Molecular-Weight DNA” - (2007)



It is worth reading; I just quote a table about compared specificities of luminol (left) and TMB (right). NR = no reaction; in brackets the number of positive samples of a total of 25; out of brackets the number of minutes. Dilution is probably 1:10'000 but I'm not sure should read again for that figure.





The number of minutes within the reaction needs to be 1 or less for TMB to be declared a positive result. There is a list of substances reacting with luminol and TMB. In parentheses the number of positive results out of 25 samples. For example, tomato gave positive reaction to TMB on 23 samples out of 25; while luminol gave no reaction (“NR”). Red onion yielded 21 positive results to TMB.

Interestingly, chlorine was found non reactive to luminol. Authors assume this is because sample stains were all 18 hours "old". Sodium hypochlorite solution is believed to loose its property of triggering luminol reaction as the time passes due to evaporation.

Thank you for checking out my reference 2. Would you agree with their findings that the sensitivity of TMB and Luminol are similar at 1:100,000? If TMB is less specific, then a negative TMB test given a positive Luminol test is even more surprising!

 

[Planigale]

Direct evidence of earth rotation is actually possible, through measurement of: 1) Ferrel law, 2) Coriolis force, 3) force of gravity latitude gradient. Also earth revolution can be shown directly by triangulation measurements. In fact direct evidence would require knowledge about gravity and other technical equipment Galileo didn't have (thus he developed some erroneous "direct" demonstrations, such as the tidal movement). It was impossible to have a direct evidence at his time.
It may happen that direct evidence is impractical to achieve or impossible.

That Jupiter had moons and Venus had phases is an example of indirect, therefore circumstantial evidence. It's an analogy. It's like looking at a diluted print in blood, and make an inference about a latent print in luminol both on the same crime scene.

Galiei published a divulgative science book in Italian supporting such circumstantial evidence. The Church decided that unless he had direct evidence, he should stick to supporting the opposing theory.

Since Einstein we know there is no preferred observer, so I would like to point out the universe actually rotates about the Planigale. My sister has certainly expressed her opinion to the contrary on occasion, but she is a lawyer and not a physicist so her opinion doesn't matter.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe based on the literature that you have read in the last two days.
But there is literature about luminol being far more sensitive than TMB without ascorbic or citric acid or other equivalent reducents, and its being more specific. Reducents are very common on living organisms including human beings, since the body defends its tissues though anti-oxidizing agents; not to speak about that strong chemical reductant called THC (Cannabis) that Knox and Sollecito had assumed in significant amount that day. But his is irrelevant: researches found that luminol is just more sensitive than TMB and more specific, full stop.
There is for example - but it's just an example - this article:

S. Tobe; N. Watson; Nic Dae´id – “ Evaluation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood, Their Specificity, Sensitivity, and Effect on High Molecular-Weight DNA” - (2007)



It is worth reading; I just quote a table about compared specificities of luminol (left) and TMB (right). NR = no reaction; in brackets the number of positive samples of a total of 25; out of brackets the number of minutes. Dilution is probably 1:10'000 but I'm not sure should read again for that figure.





The number of minutes within the reaction needs to be 1 or less for TMB to be declared a positive result. There is a list of substances reacting with luminol and TMB. In parentheses the number of positive results out of 25 samples. For example, tomato gave positive reaction to TMB on 23 samples out of 25; while luminol gave no reaction (“NR”). Red onion yielded 21 positive results to TMB.

Interestingly, chlorine was found non reactive to luminol. Authors assume this is because sample stains were all 18 hours "old". Sodium hypochlorite solution is believed to loose its property of triggering luminol reaction as the time passes due to evaporation.

You've been educated about this mistake many, many times before. The form of TMB test used in this paper was Hemastix. Do you know what Hemastix are? They are a combined two-part test with all the relevant chemicals (the TMB and the peroxide) contained on the stick.

However, the type of TMB test that is under discussion here (the type that should be employed after a Luminol positive, and the type that Stefanoni should have used if she knew how to do her job competently) is NOT a Hemastix test. Instead, its the two-part test.

And the use of the two-part test is critical. It's what enables the test to be vastly more specific for blood than Luminol. And that's why it's done after a Luminol positive. A positive in the first part of the test (application of TMB) indicates that blood is probably not present. A negative when the second part (the peroxide) is applied indicates that there is almost certainly not blood present. A negative in part 1 and a positive in part 2 indicates that blood is definitely present.

I really suggest you educate yourself about this subject before carrying on with your spurious arguments. Here is an instruction guide for the proper 2-part TMB test that is the test required following a Luminol positive:

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/lab_manual/Linked Documents/Protocols/pdi_lab_pro_2.19.pdf

And then please don't come back making false references to Hemastix (which is merely used as a quick and dirty in-field test for blood, and which itself is often followed up with the proper 2-part TMB test to exclude substances other than blood from the Hemastix positive). To repeat: trying to claim that "Hemastix" is analogous to "TMB test" is utterly wrong, and in fact is explicitly wrong in the scenario we are discussing.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see Mach is falling back on his 'circumstantial evidence' thing again. Never mind the science, (suppressed) negative TMB results, inexplicable (is it?) absence of confirmatory tests and all that crap. The ISC has explained that any piece of crap evidence can be shored up by other bits of same provided we give the process of summation a fancy name, like 'osmosis'. Or how about 'bias'?

Exactly. And he (and possibly Nencini too) is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept at play here.

The point about "osmosis" etc is that various pieces of evidence that point weakly towards guilt may, taken together, form strong evidence of guilt. But here's the critical thing: each of these pieces of evidence must be shown to be accurate and reliable in and of themselves.

The "osmosis" rule absolutely does NOT imply that one can take several pieces of evidence that are each unreliable, then line them up alongside each other and state that the combined presence of all of them makes each of them magically more reliable.

Instead, each separate piece of evidence is required to pass a threshold of reliability/accuracy/credibility before it can even be put into the mix. Only then can it be considered alongside all the other equally reliable pieces of evidence.

In this specific case, it's utterly specious for Machiavelli (or anyone else) to try to claim that it somehow doesn't really matter that the substance on the floor wasn't proven by the police to be blood, since when it's considered alongside other evidence, this makes it "more likely" to be blood. That sort of approach is not only anti-judicial, it's also fundamentally illogical. (See also the nonsense "argument" that it's "reasonable" to assume this is blood since there was "copious blood" in Kercher's room nearby - it doesn't take a Socratic genius to see just how massive a logic failure this is....)

 

[Dan O.]

Stefanoni might actually be retarded enough to have used Hemastixs after the Luminol test. If she hadn't lied when cross examined there would have been testimony about what she actually used including the brand identification of the kit and when it was applied. But the negative results didn't support the prosecution so she withheld it form the defense until it was discovered when she was forced to turn over the SALs because she was caught withholding dates that she testified to but hadn't disclosed. So much stupid in that package.

 

[Desert Fox]

Exactly. And he (and possibly Nencini too) is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept at play here.

The point about "osmosis" etc is that various pieces of evidence that point weakly towards guilt may, taken together, form strong evidence of guilt. But here's the critical thing: each of these pieces of evidence must be shown to be accurate and reliable in and of themselves.

The "osmosis" rule absolutely does NOT imply that one can take several pieces of evidence that are each unreliable, then line them up alongside each other and state that the combined presence of all of them makes each of them magically more reliable.

Instead, each separate piece of evidence is required to pass a threshold of reliability/accuracy/credibility before it can even be put into the mix. Only then can it be considered alongside all the other equally reliable pieces of evidence.

In this specific case, it's utterly specious for Machiavelli (or anyone else) to try to claim that it somehow doesn't really matter that the substance on the floor wasn't proven by the police to be blood, since when it's considered alongside other evidence, this makes it "more likely" to be blood. That sort of approach is not only anti-judicial, it's also fundamentally illogical. (See also the nonsense "argument" that it's "reasonable" to assume this is blood since there was "copious blood" in Kercher's room nearby - it doesn't take a Socratic genius to see just how massive a logic failure this is....)

Thank you. . . . You both explained
1. What Machiavelli's position is - a bunch of crappy pieces of evidence together equals good evidence.
2. That a simple answer is that evidence must pass a certain threshold even if not perfect evidence. Not that I dod not know that but how best to articulate it.

 

[toto]

Exactly. And he (and possibly Nencini too) is fundamentally misunderstanding the concept at play here.

The point about "osmosis" etc is that various pieces of evidence that point weakly towards guilt may, taken together, form strong evidence of guilt. But here's the critical thing: each of these pieces of evidence must be shown to be accurate and reliable in and of themselves.

The "osmosis" rule absolutely does NOT imply that one can take several pieces of evidence that are each unreliable, then line them up alongside each other and state that the combined presence of all of them makes each of them magically more reliable.

Instead, each separate piece of evidence is required to pass a threshold of reliability/accuracy/credibility before it can even be put into the mix. Only then can it be considered alongside all the other equally reliable pieces of evidence.

In this specific case, it's utterly specious for Machiavelli (or anyone else) to try to claim that it somehow doesn't really matter that the substance on the floor wasn't proven by the police to be blood, since when it's considered alongside other evidence, this makes it "more likely" to be blood. That sort of approach is not only anti-judicial, it's also fundamentally illogical. (See also the nonsense "argument" that it's "reasonable" to assume this is blood since there was "copious blood" in Kercher's room nearby - it doesn't take a Socratic genius to see just how massive a logic failure this is....)

This seems very clear. I wonder how clearly and forcefully this point was made in the two appeals.