Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Well, Machiavelli's point has some (very limited, and misunderstood) validity.

The experimental curve for t(lag) is demonstrably a modified bell curve, with a significantly squashed left hand side (owing to the fact that the curve cannot extend beyond t=0) and a shortened tail on the right hand side (owing to the fact that there is a definitive upper limit to t(lag)).

And Machiavelli is correct to say that we are dealing with the far right hand side of this bell curve, where there is (by definition) a shallower gradient, and where therefore there is a lesser step change in probability per unit of time than for the steep middle part of the curve.

But....... the curve at this point still enables cogent, statistically-valid analysis. I can go over the precise data at some point if necessary, but from memory, the curve obeys the following approximate properties:

At t=150, the area under the curve to the right of this point equates to about 2%, meaning that there's a 2% probability that t(lag) is >= 150 minutes.

At t=180, the area under the curve to the right equates to about 0.2%, meaning that a) there's a 2% probability that t(lag) is >=180m, and b) there's a 1.8% (2%-0.2%) probability that t(lag) is between 150m and 180m.

At t=210, the area under the curve to the right equates to about 0.01%, meaning that a) there's a 0.01% probability that t(lag) is >=210m, b) there's a 1.99% (2%-0.01%) probability that t(lag) is between 150m and 210m.

At t=240, the curve has reached zero on the y-axis, showing that there's zero probability of t(lag) >=240m.

Now, with all those in mind, the pertinent questions are actually conditional probability calculations. These are as follows:


Q1: Given that t >=150*, what is the probability that t(lag) is between 150-180m as opposed to >180m?

A1: 90%. In other words, it's 90% likely that Kercher died between 9pm and 9.30pm as opposed to later than 9.30pm.


Q2: Given that t >=150, what is the probability that t(lag) is between 150-210m as opposed to >210m?

A2: 99.5%. In other words, it's 99.5% likely that Kercher died between 9pm and 10pm as opposed to later than 10pm.


Q3: Given that t >=150, what is the probability that t(lag) is between 150-240m as opposed to >240m?

A3: 100%. It's a statistical certainty that Kercher died between 9pm and 10.30pm as opposed to later than 10.30pm.


That's what an analysis of the statistics, and the proper application of conditional probability theory, tell us. I will concede that there's bound to be some margin of error around these numbers, but the overall message will remain absolutely firm: it's very highly likely that Kercher died between 9pm and 9.30pm; it's a virtual certainty that she died between 9pm and 10pm, and its a total certainty that she died before 10.30pm.


* Working on the knowledge that start of Kercher's last meal (which is the relevant starting point here) took place at around 6.30pm, and that she was last knowingly alive just before 9pm (150 minutes later)

Somehow I missed a page. LondonJohn there is no chance she survived statistically beyond 9pm. It is clear cut.
Machiavelli moves the eating of the meal early to prove digestion science is unuseable.
I move the meal time late to get inside a curve that gets Meredith home and alive at 9pm to fit uncontested facts.
All talk of death up to 10 30pm is unviable, and I have researched this to try and find a simple paradigm to get the investigative journalists interested.

 

[Samson]

Teina Pora is being defended in London right now pro bono by a New Zealand Queen's council. He is there because he knows with certainty his client is innocent.
The facts are almost identical, in the essential ingredients, (false confession, no forensic link to the crime scene, perpetrator with dna evidence jailed after the jailing of Pora), to the Knox case.

 

[anglolawyer]

Is reading a couple of pages of posts & extracting the relevant data that difficult – luckily practice of the law doesn’t involve reading documents eh

I read back a couple of pages, as you directed, but found no documents. Only some familiar photographs of the lamp with no evidence marker lying intact on the floor. If there are any, please link me to these documents of yours.

 

[anglolawyer]

Apparently it is.

There are no documents of mine – there are references to court documents. But if you can’t spot them – Well, as I have had to advise LJ on more than one occasion, then your confusion is not amenable to a text based solution.

It shall have to remain a mystery.

Pity but then, as you say, there it is. There is no testimony in this case which proves the lamp was already there. If there were, Massei would have referenced it and made a finding (of course it could be in the secret part of his motivation, I suppose). If you say otherwise, either post it or shut up about it

 

[LondonJohn]

If you think that’s lovely THIS will knock your socks off.

Not this again (do you have it bookmarked or something?)

Once again, I'll tell you that you're comparing apples and oranges. The apples are absolute probabilities (in this case: what is the probability that any particular person's t(lag) is less than t=x), and the oranges are conditional probabilities (in this case: given that a particular person's t(lag) is known to be greater than t=x, what is the probability that t(lag) is less than t=y).

So when applied to this particular case, it's perfectly valid to say both of the following:

The probability of someone having a t(lag) of <t=150 is 98%.

And

Given that we know that a person has a t(lag) of greater than t=150, the probability of that person's t(lag) being between t=150-180 is 95%


I can see that you do not properly understand conditional probability theory, but that's how it works. I suggest you might read some background on conditional probability calculations. Or you can ask Machiavelli - at least he grasps the essence of the underlying theory (see his post about life expectancies). Either way, if you continue to be baffled by what are fairly simple mathematical calculations, there's not much debate to be had with you on the subject.

 

[platonov]

Memories of Macavity

Not this again (do you have it bookmarked or something?)

Once again, I'll tell you that you're comparing apples and oranges. The apples are absolute probabilities (in this case: what is the probability that any particular person's t(lag) is less than t=x), and the oranges are conditional probabilities (in this case: given that a particular person's t(lag) is known to be greater than t=x, what is the probability that t(lag) is less than t=y).

So when applied to this particular case, it's perfectly valid to say both of the following:

The probability of someone having a t(lag) of <t=150 is 98%.

And

Given that we know that a person has a t(lag) of greater than t=150, the probability of that person's t(lag) being between t=150-180 is 95%


I can see that you do not properly understand conditional probability theory, but that's how it works. I suggest you might read some background on conditional probability calculations. Or you can ask Machiavelli - at least he grasps the essence of the underlying theory (see his post about life expectancies). Either way, if you continue to be baffled by what are fairly simple mathematical calculations, there's not much debate to be had with you on the subject.

I can remember the couple of pages in the CT thread where I have linked to some of the funniest & dumbest posts in Cartwheel world. It’s not that difficult.

As to the rest of your post – meh.
That the 25% correction was the salient issue is not that complicated is it

ETA Here's the LINK to the last time you had a go at these conditional probabilities.

 

[Samson]

And the Shrien Dewani case is being dismantled.

Chronology.
Teina Pora jailed with no forensic link to the crime then real perpetrator jailed with forensic and dna link to the crime .
Amanda Knox jailed with no forensic link to the crime then real perpetrator jailed with forensic and dna link to the crime .
Shrien Dewani charged with no motive then real perpetrator jailed with forensic links to the crime.

 

[carbonjam72]

And what are the reasons they give for the break-in being staged?

There was some BS about glass being on top of clothes in Filomena's room. Not convincing when one looks at a photo on IIP.

Can you explain their theory?

In terms of the police motive for the framing of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba, I can offer perhaps three possibilities. I am aware that if they recognized Guede's MO and decided to protect themselves in terms of the release of Guede in Milan, the police could be considered more culpable.

In an upthread post, I quoted an ECHR decision finding Italy in violation of Article 2 for the early release of a man who had been convicted of rape and murder, who then murdered two women after his early release.

My position is that there is not enough information in this case to be absolutely sure of which theory of police motive is true. Thus, one may pick a favorite or, in a fanciful quantum-mechanical type of construct, believe that elements of each theory are true.

The three theories I am considering are:

1. Police recognized Guede's MO and, since they were responsible for his release and thus morally responsible for his committing the murder-rape, they had to frame individuals to distract attention from the police involvement.
This theory is consistent with Guede having been a police informant, but it would also apply if Guede were protected by the police because of his previous relationship to a respected wealthy Perugian family or even simply because the police admired his skills as an amateur basketball player.

2. The police recognized that a sub-Saharan African was involved in the crime. They learned that Amanda Knox worked for such a person. Amanda had no lawyer, was in Perugia with her boyfriend the night of the murder, had a key to the apartment, was a beginning speaker of Italian, didn't know her legal rights, and was an American female. She had communicated by phone message with Patrick Lumumba the evening of the murder, in a message that the police could intentionally misunderstand. Therefore, the frame is logical. Why look for the actual perpetrator?

3. The police saw that the window was a break-in; possibly a common method of entry for burglars in Italy and elsewhere. It would be efficient for the police to decide that the break-in was staged and that the murderer and rapist was someone who had been close to the victim. Thus, start with the boys downstairs. Oops, they have strong alibis. Next, the other residents of the victim's apartment. How about Amanda Knox? Amanda had no lawyer, was in Perugia with her boyfriend the night of the murder, had a key to the apartment, was a beginning speaker of Italian, didn't know her legal rights, and was an American female. She had communicated by phone message with Patrick Lumumba the evening of the murder, in a message that the police could intentionally misunderstand. Therefore, the frame is logical and convenient (minimizes police effort). Why look for the actual perpetrator?

Two points I'd raise -

First, there doesn't have to be only one POV from the Italians. There are many people involved, with varying degrees of information. But Mignini was in theory at least, "directing the investigation", and in a position to shape the discussion to fit his own ends. (So all three options you've listed are possible at the same time).

Secondly (or a 4th additional option), Mignini was himself then under indictment for his excesses in jailing MArio Spezi and investigating anybody who challenged his 'satanic sect sex orgy murder' theories, in his effort to insinuate himself in the Monster of Florence crimes, for purposes of career advancement.

Mignini had relied on the explanations of the 'psychic medium' Gabriella Carlizzi, who had immediately drawn a connection between the Kercher killing and Mignini's MOF theory - which was based on her communication with Mignini (according to SPezi/Preston in their book, "MOF"). And Carlizzi travelled to Perugia "within days" of the Kercher killing, and met with Mignini, although no transcript is available (Preston/Spezi).

Mignini immediately tried to link the Kercher killing to the rites of halloween, and according to Nina Burleigh, interpreted the single bare foot (slip shod) foot prints in blood, as indications of masonic rites, and this is the same satanic-masonic conspiracy Mignini (and our own mach) have been chasing like devils in the night.

So Mignini's need for a satanic sex conspiracy, may well have joined with a Perugian authority's (including Mignini) need to deflect attention away from Rudy Guede.

Now consider again the lies that were told about the fake break-in. To me, these are "directional" designed to lead away from Guede -

-choice of window, when they knew its consistent with his style.

-covering with a duvet is a "female" gesture, when they know its a novice gesture, almost always - like Guede - a male.

-glass on top of clothes, except the photos of the crimes scene showed it wasn't true.

I used to have more, but I'm sure you get the drift.

I've always believed this whole tragedy was always and only about Giuliano Mignini, that incompetent sadistic psychotic histrionic buffoon.

 

[Numbers]

There is a difference between 'unreliable' and 'bogus', firstly. Nothing can shore up bogus evidence. But something which is, viewed in isolation, not reliable can be shored up by something else and turned into useful evidence. It's got a name - corroboration. It's very difficult to use this case as an illustrative example because most of the so-called evidence is indeed bogus but, in a proper case and like I said before, if a hurricane had blown the house away after the luminol tests but before TMB then the resulting evidence would not be fundamentally worthless and incapable of proving anything. It could conceivably have probative value if other evidence existed that showed, say, there had been all-night cleaning activity in the house (lights on, noise, use of cleaning materials, mop with traces of blood etc).

Let's step back and remember why we are discussing this in the first place. It's because Galati, the ISC and Nencini claim that Hellman erred in looking at evidence in isolation and not taking the above principle into account. The guilters now parrot this as though it resolves everything. It doesn't. Weak evidence may not survive direct assault. It may never make it, not because it is weak (weak evidence is still evidence) but because it is destroyed altogether. The luminol hits are a good example, as are the knife, the bra clasp, Curatolo, Quintavalle and many things besides.

The other thing about circumstantial evidence is it should all point to just one thing. Only one thing that actually happened. The Thing That Actually Happened gave off evidence like radiation and the sensors detecting it should be able to describe its path through space time accurately. What we have instead is a mėlange of inconsistent and irreconcilable junk that cannot be made to fit no matter how hard you try. That there are many out there, including Italian judges, willing to make fools of themselves in the attempt doesn't alter the fact.

There may be a definitional or viewpoint issue between us. When I write "unreliable", I mean forensic evidence, for example, that cannot be considered scientifically trustworthy because, for example, it comes from use of a method which has not been validated, or because the method has suffered from some compromise or error that renders its results untrustworthy. Similarly, if one gets "ear witness" testimony from a person who could be shown from an audiometric exam to not have been able to hear, due to hearing loss or environmental factors, that evidence would be unreliable. Perhaps you would call such evidence "bogus", meaning " not genuine : counterfeit, sham" {http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bogus). But "unreliable" evidence may be a broader category of untrustworthy information.

Here's a simplified constructed example of "unreliable" evidence from the US:

A police forensic lab tests allegedly illegal drug substances in equipment that does chemical analysis; there is a flow tube leading into the equipment that conducts the sample into the apparatus for testing. The flow tube and other components must be thoroughly flushed and cleaned between samples, and a negative control run between samples to ensure no contamination of one sample to the next. To increase throughput, the lab technician operating the device does not follow the flushing-cleaning-negative control protocol between tests. Sample 1 from alleged drug dealer 1 at the start of the work day is found by the test equipment, cleaned at the end of work the previous day, to contain illegal drug. The flushing-cleaning-negative control procedure is skipped, and Sample 2 from alleged drug dealer 2 is sampled. What would an objective person believe if Sample 2 showed the same illegal drug as had been found for Sample 1, perhaps at a lower concentration? The test was unreliable because of the way the procedure was followed, and I would maintain that the results from Sample 2 were unreliable.

In fact, something similar to my example has happened in several US forensic labs, and hundreds or thousands of convictions have been thrown out for that reason. See, for example:

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...eview-finds/asc53OgqHcQFEik4MLRpgI/story.html

Annie Dookhan, alleged rogue state chemist, may have affected 40,323 people’s cases, review finds

Governor Deval Patrick’s administration said it believes the criminal cases of 40,323 people may have been tainted by the actions of the alleged rogue drug lab chemist and the management failures at the now-closed Department of Public Health lab where she worked

 

[Samson]

I regard the PMFs as requiring response anywhere be cause it is almost impossible to post there

Norbert respects Masipa on Pistorius and has this to say

I appreciate your suggestion, but see the Pistorius case as relevant to our discussion of the Knox / Sollecito / Guede case for various reasons: two brutal killings of lovely young ladies, defendants with high public profiles, doubts about the facts given the lack of prima facie evidence, and the issue of judicial competence / corruption.

It happens that we have consensus at PMF about most elements of the Knox case, but do not have consensus regarding Pistorius.

What concerns me is that our discussion of the Pistorius case offers an opportunity to prove PMF critics wrong: we are not just "guilters" intent on seeing conspiracy everywhere we look. We are capable of open, honest, and polite debate that goes wherever it goes. Sadly, a handful of PMF members are proving me wrong. When logic fails, they resort to sarcasm and insults. This is disappointing because it suggests that PMF critics may have a point.

Brushing this dispute under the rug is not the answer, IMHO.

Furthermore, the discussion of the Knox case has degenerated somewhat into analysis of her writing efforts plus 24 / 7 tracking of the FOA groupies.

Well, that's how I see it in this lovely November morning ...

Norbert
norbertc

I have tried to respond to his posts there, and have sent him a detailed email to which he is yet to respond to.

It is frustrating that only Machiavelli engages here. Popper says he would help him out, but can't abide fools, clearly I am one of this designated number.

There seems little appetite here to promote dialogue, but Nencini totally agrees with these people and so does the ISC.

Many read this forum, so why not call them to account here, where they are welcome?

 

[Numbers]

Well now, it seems to me that Italy's record in this regard is no worse than that of any other European nation (god knows why the hell you think "North Korea" is relevant), which is entirely Machiavelli's point. So what is your point?

If Italy's record is unremarkable in the context of all countries submissions to the ECHR it might be intelligent to realise the total irrelevance of the topic and stop droning on about it endlessly. You won't of course . In a week's time, when you think everyone has forgotten about it, you'll be frothing at the mouth and spouting about Italy's diabolical human rights record!! Plus ca change...

For "North Korea" one may substitute the names of any of several Council of Europe states, such as Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and some to the states once belonging to the Communist bloc. Not all the CoE states have the same level of adherence to the Convention in practice. There are a number of CoE states with better human rights records than Italy, including the several northern European states and Germany. Perhaps even the UK, when its not messing up its procedures in dealing with presumed IRA or other terrorists.

 

[Numbers]

Oh dear, here we go. Yawn. We have already discussed this and shown that the Italy's record is unremarkable. That's the fact of the matter. It might not support your wild conspiracy theory but that's the situation.

Let's see some statistics to back up your subjective comment. Remember to look over a long enough span of years to achieve some statistical validity.

 

[anglolawyer]

There may be a definitional or viewpoint issue between us. When I write "unreliable", I mean forensic evidence, for example, that cannot be considered scientifically trustworthy because, for example, it comes from use of a method which has not been validated, or because the method has suffered from some compromise or error that renders its results untrustworthy. Similarly, if one gets "ear witness" testimony from a person who could be shown from an audiometric exam to not have been able to hear, due to hearing loss or environmental factors, that evidence would be unreliable. Perhaps you would call such evidence "bogus", meaning " not genuine : counterfeit, sham" {http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bogus). But "unreliable" evidence may be a broader category of untrustworthy information.

Here's a simplified constructed example of "unreliable" evidence from the US:

A police forensic lab tests allegedly illegal drug substances in equipment that does chemical analysis; there is a flow tube leading into the equipment that conducts the sample into the apparatus for testing. The flow tube and other components must be thoroughly flushed and cleaned between samples, and a negative control run between samples to ensure no contamination of one sample to the next. To increase throughput, the lab technician operating the device does not follow the flushing-cleaning-negative control protocol between tests. Sample 1 from alleged drug dealer 1 at the start of the work day is found by the test equipment, cleaned at the end of work the previous day, to contain illegal drug. The flushing-cleaning-negative control procedure is skipped, and Sample 2 from alleged drug dealer 2 is sampled. What would an objective person believe if Sample 2 showed the same illegal drug as had been found for Sample 1, perhaps at a lower concentration? The test was unreliable because of the way the procedure was followed, and I would maintain that the results from Sample 2 were unreliable.

In fact, something similar to my example has happened in several US forensic labs, and hundreds or thousands of convictions have been thrown out for that reason. See, for example:

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...eview-finds/asc53OgqHcQFEik4MLRpgI/story.html

Annie Dookhan, alleged rogue state chemist, may have affected 40,323 people’s cases, review finds

Governor Deval Patrick’s administration said it believes the criminal cases of 40,323 people may have been tainted by the actions of the alleged rogue drug lab chemist and the management failures at the now-closed Department of Public Health lab where she worked

Yes, that's helpful. We are probably using the word 'unreliable' slightly differently, although both meanings are perfectly OK. We can cast to one side bogus evidence. It's simply not probative of anything and may even operate to destroy what might otherwise be serviceable evidence. Lying is a good way to achieve this and requires no elaboration.

I was rather thinking of the not wholly reliable eye witness, Curatolo, say whose evidence might need shoring up by other evidence and is thus not inherently beyond recall. In your illustration, even if there were concrete, independent evidence that dealer 2 had been in possession of the same illegal substance I would not regard that as corroborating an invalid scientific procedure. Such a thing is indeed worthless. However, in my example in which only luminol is used and the house is then blown away or burned down, the test result has some probative value since the procedure was valid (well, maybe not, according to some here who say there is evidence of over-application). The value is not zero as it would be if Stefanoni lied about the luminol result as she did about TMB.

 

[Numbers]

Two points I'd raise -

First, there doesn't have to be only one POV from the Italians. There are many people involved, with varying degrees of information. But Mignini was in theory at least, "directing the investigation", and in a position to shape the discussion to fit his own ends. (So all three options you've listed are possible at the same time).

Secondly (or a 4th additional option), Mignini was himself then under indictment for his excesses in jailing MArio Spezi and investigating anybody who challenged his 'satanic sect sex orgy murder' theories, in his effort to insinuate himself in the Monster of Florence crimes, for purposes of career advancement.

Mignini had relied on the explanations of the 'psychic medium' Gabriella Carlizzi, who had immediately drawn a connection between the Kercher killing and Mignini's MOF theory - which was based on her communication with Mignini (according to SPezi/Preston in their book, "MOF"). And Carlizzi travelled to Perugia "within days" of the Kercher killing, and met with Mignini, although no transcript is available (Preston/Spezi).

Mignini immediately tried to link the Kercher killing to the rites of halloween, and according to Nina Burleigh, interpreted the single bare foot (slip shod) foot prints in blood, as indications of masonic rites, and this is the same satanic-masonic conspiracy Mignini (and our own mach) have been chasing like devils in the night.

So Mignini's need for a satanic sex conspiracy, may well have joined with a Perugian authority's (including Mignini) need to deflect attention away from Rudy Guede.

Now consider again the lies that were told about the fake break-in. To me, these are "directional" designed to lead away from Guede -

-choice of window, when they knew its consistent with his style.

-covering with a duvet is a "female" gesture, when they know its a novice gesture, almost always - like Guede - a male.

-glass on top of clothes, except the photos of the crimes scene showed it wasn't true.

I used to have more, but I'm sure you get the drift.

I've always believed this whole tragedy was always and only about Giuliano Mignini, that incompetent sadistic psychotic histrionic buffoon.

Yes. These points are all true.

So there are four viable possible "quantum states" of police/prosecution motivation detected so far, and they can be mixed according, perhaps, to one's subjective desire; the mixing fractions each must lie between 0 and 1 and the total of the fractions must be 1.

 

[Desert Fox]

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...eview-finds/asc53OgqHcQFEik4MLRpgI/story.html

Annie Dookhan, alleged rogue state chemist, may have affected 40,323 people’s cases, review finds

Governor Deval Patrick’s administration said it believes the criminal cases of 40,323 people may have been tainted by the actions of the alleged rogue drug lab chemist and the management failures at the now-closed Department of Public Health lab where she worked

This seems to be a key difference between north eastern United States states and southern United States states. The north eastern ones seem willing to admit that they made a mistake when their nose is pushed into the excrement while southern ones are not. Italy seems to have more in common with the southern states.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, that's helpful. We are probably using the word 'unreliable' slightly differently, although both meanings are perfectly OK. We can cast to one side bogus evidence. It's simply not probative of anything and may even operate to destroy what might otherwise be serviceable evidence. Lying is a good way to achieve this and requires no elaboration.

I was rather thinking of the not wholly reliable eye witness, Curatolo, say whose evidence might need shoring up by other evidence and is thus not inherently beyond recall. In your illustration, even if there were concrete, independent evidence that dealer 2 had been in possession of the same illegal substance I would not regard that as corroborating an invalid scientific procedure. Such a thing is indeed worthless. However, in my example in which only luminol is used and the house is then blown away or burned down, the test result has some probative value since the procedure was valid (well, maybe not, according to some here who say there is evidence of over-application). The value is not zero as it would be if Stefanoni lied about the luminol result as she did about TMB.

Because of all the false positives one may find with luminol, relying on it alone as an indicator of blood is simply unreliable. With current technology antigen-antibody blood detection cards, a confirmatory test would not be difficult or costly; failure to do such a test is either incompetence or intentional malpractice. A TMB test - which is only presumptive - following a luminol test is probably less costly than the confirmatory test; when the TMB test is negative, the confirmatory test would not be needed. The presumed blood is not blood. If there were still doubt, do the confirmatory test.

In a Venn diagram, the circles of positives for luminol and TMB, both presumptive tests for blood, overlap but are not congruent. In tests on the same specimen with each: if both test results are positive, the substance may be blood; if one is positive but not the other, the substance is not blood. If one believed that the substance were blood in spite of the difference in test results, the action to be taken is to conduct a confirmatory test. If one found both presumptive tests to be positive, the action to be taken is to conduct a confirmatory test.

Regarding Curotola and his testimony, I thought the value of it was reduced to zero by the witness himself in the Hellmann court. It takes the sum of an unthinkable (impossible) number of zeroes to reach one (= conviction beyond a reasonable doubt).

Did you find that there was still value in Curotola's testimony after Hellmann? If so, why?

 

[Machiavelli]

Delusion? Don't you mean right? TMB negative tests mean they were not blood. All you have are some presumptive tests positive and some presumptive tests negative. Not a single confirmatory test. We can go over this point again and again and again. Science backs up the fact that the Luminol stains were NOT from the murder. PERIOD. It is horribly wrong that one can and should conclude that these stains are the from the murder. Especially in any judicial system that values the concept that any suspect is innocent until proven wrong

False.

F A L S E.

Science dies NOT point to these stains being any substance other than blood.

(if you think otherwise, point out one alternative substance indicated by science).

 

[Numbers]

Here's another article relating to false positives, but for drug testing:

Feature: Citing Startling Research on False Positive Drug Tests, Researchers Call for Moratorium on Field Drug Test Kit Testing

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/mar/06/feature_citing_startling_researc

An excerpt:

That research came as part of new report, False Positives Equal False Justice, by forensics expert John Kelly in collaboration with former FBI chief scientist and narcotics officer Dr. Frederick Whitehurst. In the report, the pair uncovered "a drug testing regime of fraudulent forensics used by police, prosecutors, and judges which abrogates every American's constitutional rights," as Kelly wrote in the executive summary.

"Law enforcement officials, forensic drug analysts, and prosecutors knowingly employ the flawed Duquenois-Levine and KN Reagent tests as well as mere conclusory police reports to wrongfully prosecute and convict millions of individuals for anti-marijuana law violations," Kelly wrote. "These wrongful prosecutions and convictions violate Supreme Court rulings which prohibit the use of inaccurate, nonspecific tests and/or conclusory reports because they do not prove the presence of marijuana in a seized substance. In other words, millions of people have been, and continue to be, prosecuted and convicted of marijuana charges without proof that they possessed marijuana."

So for murder cases, no inaccurate, nonspecific tests and/or conclusory reports, please.

 

[anglolawyer]

Because of all the false positives one may find with luminol, relying on it alone as an indicator of blood is simply unreliable. With current technology antigen-antibody blood detection cards, a confirmatory test would not be difficult or costly; failure to do such a test is either incompetence or intentional malpractice. A TMB test - which is only presumptive - following a luminol test is probably less costly than the confirmatory test; when the TMB test is negative, the confirmatory test would not be needed. The presumed blood is not blood. If there were still doubt, do the confirmatory test.

In a Venn diagram, the circles of positives for luminol and TMB, both presumptive tests for blood, overlap but are not congruent. In tests on the same specimen with each: if both test results are positive, the substance may be blood; if one is positive but not the other, the substance is not blood. If one believed that the substance were blood in spite of the difference in test results, the action to be taken is to conduct a confirmatory test. If one found both presumptive tests to be positive, the action to be taken is to conduct a confirmatory test.

Regarding Curotola and his testimony, I thought the value of it was reduced to zero by the witness himself in the Hellmann court. It takes the sum of an unthinkable (impossible) number of zeroes to reach one (= conviction beyond a reasonable doubt).

Did you find that there was still value in Curotola's testimony after Hellmann? If so, why?

On your last question, no, none at all. Before or after Hellman. I said already, this case is not a good one from which draw examples because most of the evidence is bogus, including Curatolo's.

But luminol by itself could, in context, be evidence of something, as, for example, in LJ's recent photographs of a crime scene where luminol showed something thst might well have been the residue of blood left by a dead body. Of course, there is no good reason thst I know of not to follow up with tests that would put the matter beyond doubt but that's not the point.

 

[Numbers]

On your last question, no, none at all. Before or after Hellman. I said already, this case is not a good one from which draw examples because most of the evidence is bogus, including Curatolo's.

But luminol by itself could, in context, be evidence of something, as, for example, in LJ's recent photographs of a crime scene where luminol showed something thst might well have been the residue of blood left by a dead body. Of course, there is no good reason thst I know of not to follow up with tests that would put the matter beyond doubt but that's not the point.

If there is enough other valid evidence.... In the case LJ shows, the floor of the garage may have been cleaned with a substance that activated luminol. May be what was cleaned was one or more oil spills, not blood.

My bath tub may be positive for luminol, although from cleanser chemical residue perhaps not fully rinsed away (although I try to be thorough), not from chopping up anyone.

So that is the point.