Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Vixen]

I don't think you can, but isn't the quantity of white blood cells small?

While i agree with you that without DNA, we can't make an attribution, that isn't the hypothesis I'm suggesting. I'm just saying that the failure to find DNA in a presumptive positive luminol area does not mean it isn't blood. But, I am by no means an expert.

The ratio of white to red blood cells is between 1:1000 to 1:2000.

Stefanoni and Mignini believe Amanda was bleeding the same time as Mez as her mixed DNA in the bathroom sink exceeded Mez' whom we know was bleeding prolifically.

The claim, oh, it was just her brushing her teeth is just so much flannel.

 

[acbytesla]

The ratio of white to red blood cells is between 1:1000 to 1:2000.

Stefanoni and Mignini believe Amanda was bleeding the same time as Mez as her mixed DNA in the bathroom sink exceeded Mez' whom we know was bleeding prolifically.

The claim, oh, it was just her brushing her teeth is just so much flannel.

I know you think those numbers are significant. But it's really not. They are just numbers without context. The question raised and not addressed is can we reasonably expect to find DNA in an area that once had what is presumed to be blood?


As for Stefanoni and Mignini wild ass speculation, that's all it is. Especially when we consider that no cuts were found on Amanda. Ooops

 

[bagels]

The ratio of white to red blood cells is between 1:1000 to 1:2000.

Stefanoni and Mignini believe Amanda was bleeding the same time as Mez as her white blood cells exceeded Mez' whom we know was bleeding prolifically.

The claim, oh, it was just her brushing her teeth is just so much flannel.

Rudy actually had cuts, on his hand, which is exactly where you'd expect wounds to be from aggressively wielding a knife during a struggle, and he voluntarily connected these cuts to the actual murder weapon by his own word, but the Italian court specifically concluded he definitely didn't wield a knife.

This is the system you're trying to defend. Isn't that funny?

 

[Vixen]

From TJMK:

Breaking news. In response to an enquiry by Ergon the Press Unit of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg has replied that even the ADMISSIBILITY of Knox's complaint is still to be decided upon. The complaint is essentially an expanded version of Knox's notorious email to Judge Nencini known to be riddled with lies about torture etc. The Italian prosecution has filed disputing Knox's claims at length. See our previous dozen posts.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Diocletus]

From TJMK:

[quote Breaking news. In response to an enquiry by Ergon the Press Unit of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg has replied that even the ADMISSIBILITY of Knox's complaint is still to be decided upon. The complaint is essentially an expanded version of Knox's notorious email to Judge Nencini known to be riddled with lies about torture etc. The Italian prosecution has filed disputing Knox's claims at length. See our previous dozen posts.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php[/QUOTE]

In other news, the sun is hot.

The petition has already been communicated. Yes, technically, they could decide at any time that it is not admissible, but at this point that is unlikely to happen. BTW, Italy is going to lose as we advised several years ago.

 

[Welshman]

C&V are bent in the legal context, as they sought to favour the defence and did little to hide it. They tried to assemble a secret DVD to help out the defence. They wined and dined with the defence during the proceedings. They warmly greeted Raff's defence team and family in full view of the court.

They refused to follow due legal process, making decisions they had no authority to make.


As you know, Vecchiotti and Gill's pal, Pascelli were each found by a court of law in 2013 of being guilty of gross professional negligence in refusing to test the DNA of a murderer who thus maintained his freedom for nineteen years and ordered to pay €150,000 to the victim's husband.


Vecchiotti and Conti are legal medical advocates. Legal bods.

Stefanoni was not an advocate for either party.

Vixen attacks yet again attacks C&V for being corrupt but then slavishly defends corrupt prosecutors who committed numerous abuses as detailed in the links below. The PGP are brazen with their hypocrisy.

As with lying, PGP don't have a problem with corruption but only how it is employed. The supposed corruption of C&V is only unacceptable to PGP because C&V found there was no DNA on the knife which was helpful to Amand and Raffaele. PGP defend the corrupt practicesof the prosecution because they worked against Amanda and Raffaele. If C&V were corrupt and had concluded Meredith's DNA was on the knife and were biased in favour of the prosecution, PGP would have no issue because this would work against Amanda and Raffaele.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

https://amandaknoxauguriesofinnocence.wordpress.com/

 

[acbytesla]

From TJMK:

[quote Breaking news. In response to an enquiry by Ergon the Press Unit of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg has replied that even the ADMISSIBILITY of Knox's complaint is still to be decided upon. The complaint is essentially an expanded version of Knox's notorious email to Judge Nencini known to be riddled with lies about torture etc. The Italian prosecution has filed disputing Knox's claims at length. See our previous dozen posts.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php[/QUOTE]

Nothing Ergon says qualifies as "breaking news" let alone accurate.

 

[acbytesla]

Vixen attacks yet again attacks C&V for being corrupt but then slavishly defends corrupt prosecutors who committed numerous abuses as detailed in the links below. The PGP are brazen with their hypocrisy.

As with lying, PGP don't have a problem with corruption but only how it is employed. The supposed corruption of C&V is only unacceptable to PGP because C&V found there was no DNA on the knife which was helpful to Amand and Raffaele. PGP defend the corrupt practicesof the prosecution because they worked against Amanda and Raffaele. If C&V were corrupt and had concluded Meredith's DNA was on the knife and were biased in favour of the prosecution, PGP would have no issue because this would work against Amanda and Raffaele.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

https://amandaknoxauguriesofinnocence.wordpress.com/

Can you say 'cognitive bias'? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[TruthCalls]

I know you think those numbers are significant. But it's really not. They are just numbers without context. The question raised and not addressed is can we reasonably expect to find DNA in an area that once had what is presumed to be blood?


As for Stefanoni and Mignini wild ass speculation, that's all it is. Especially when we consider that no cuts were found on Amanda. Ooops

Not for nothing but I was kinda curious about the ratio so I did a little digging (results below). I found one site, "answers.com", which is not authoritative, where someone claimed 1:1000-1:2000. However, every other site I checked all indicated between 1:600-1:700. While I agree none of this has anything to do with the original question you posed, I do find it interesting that Vixen can't seem to ever post anything accurate. Clearly, the higher the ratio the more one might think it possible a blood sample could lose it's source of DNA. It's possible Vixen routinely uses "answers.com" to get her information but that in itself would indicate a failure to use multiple sources to validate her facts.

http://web.mit.edu/scicom/www/blood.html

Red blood cells (RBCs), also known as erythrocytes, are by far the most abundant cells in the blood. RBCs give blood its characteristic red color. RBCs account for approximately 40 to 45 percent of the blood. This percentage of blood made up of RBCs is a frequently measured number and is called the hematocrit. The ratio of cells in normal blood is 600 RBCs for each white blood cell and 40 platelets.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/blood-disorders/biology-of-blood/components-of-blood

White blood cells (also called leukocytes) are fewer in number than red blood cells, with a ratio of about 1 white blood cell to every 600 to 700 red blood cells.

http://www.majordifferences.com/2013/03/difference-between-rbc-and-wbc.html#.WIuxrXoyjps

White Blood Cells (WBC) or Corpuscles are also known as leucocytes. Their number is much less than RBC (the ratio of WBC and RBC 1:600). WBC provides defence mechanism to the body against infection.

http://blog.valdosta.edu/ap2/identification-of-red-white-blood-cells/

White blood cells are much less numerous than RBCs (5,000 – 10,000 WBCs/µL blood) with a RBC/WBC ratio of approximately 700:1.

 

[Vixen]

Not for nothing but I was kinda curious about the ratio so I did a little digging (results below). I found one site, "answers.com", which is not authoritative, where someone claimed 1:1000-1:2000. However, every other site I checked all indicated between 1:600-1:700. While I agree none of this has anything to do with the original question you posed, I do find it interesting that Vixen can't seem to ever post anything accurate. Clearly, the higher the ratio the more one might think it possible a blood sample could lose it's source of DNA. It's possible Vixen routinely uses "answers.com" to get her information but that in itself would indicate a failure to use multiple sources to validate her facts.

http://web.mit.edu/scicom/www/blood.html

Red blood cells (RBCs), also known as erythrocytes, are by far the most abundant cells in the blood. RBCs give blood its characteristic red color. RBCs account for approximately 40 to 45 percent of the blood. This percentage of blood made up of RBCs is a frequently measured number and is called the hematocrit. The ratio of cells in normal blood is 600 RBCs for each white blood cell and 40 platelets.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/blood-disorders/biology-of-blood/components-of-blood

White blood cells (also called leukocytes) are fewer in number than red blood cells, with a ratio of about 1 white blood cell to every 600 to 700 red blood cells.

http://www.majordifferences.com/2013/03/difference-between-rbc-and-wbc.html#.WIuxrXoyjps

White Blood Cells (WBC) or Corpuscles are also known as leucocytes. Their number is much less than RBC (the ratio of WBC and RBC 1:600). WBC provides defence mechanism to the body against infection.

http://blog.valdosta.edu/ap2/identification-of-red-white-blood-cells/

White blood cells are much less numerous than RBCs (5,000 – 10,000 WBCs/µL blood) with a RBC/WBC ratio of approximately 700:1.

I quoted the figure from a reliable contact of mine. I didn't research it, as I assumed it was correct.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kobilinsky and coauthors on luminol

Kobilinsky, Liotti, and Oeser-Sweat wrote, “Initially a presumptive screening test is used to identify the evidence. Presumptive tests are usually sensitive but not specific, and thus small amounts of the substance can be detected. False-negative results are very uncommon unless the amount of specimen is so small as to go undetected. However, occasionally, false-positive results that could potentially be misleading may be observed. Presumptive tests are useful as preliminary screening procedures that reduce the number of items that would otherwise have to be analyzed. Substances that provide negative presumptive results are not tested further. Presumptive tests that are positive should always be followed by confirmatory tests. The latter are less sensitive but more specific and therefore results are more reliable.” (p. 34, DNA Forensic and Legal Applications)

They include a discussion of luminol. On p. 36 they wrote, "The major benefits of performing a luminol test rather than one of the colorimetric tests is that one can search large areas very rapidly, and the chemical used does not interfere with any of the other presumptive tests that may be performed following luminol testing. If the result of the presumptive testing is negative, the analysis is terminated. However, if the result is positive, then a more definitive confirmatory test is performed."

IIRC it was Sarah Gino who indicated that 50% of luminol positive areas were negative by TMB. That these are necessarily false negatives is just PG-lore.

 

[Bill Williams]

I quoted the figure from a reliable contact of mine. I didn't research it, as I assumed it was correct.

Thank you for this straightforward comment.

 

[LondonJohn]

From Wiki:

<Wikipedia quote used as supporting evidence>


From wiki

<Wikipedia quote used as supporting evidence>

From Wiki (i.e. Wikipedia):

"In 2015 (Knox and Sollecito) were exonerated by the Supreme Court of Italy"

Q.E.D.

 

[Vixen]

Thank you for this straightforward comment.

I am very straight.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Peel, Gill, and old or diluted blood stains

There is a 2004 study by C. Peel and P. Gill that is worth reading in this context. Known blood stains were diluted or left to age. They became negative toward the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of DNA for profiling before they became negative for blood by a presumptive test, which in this experiment was the leucomalachite green test. "A positive presumptive test could be obtained from samples when a profile originating from the body fluid was no longer detectable." There are other interesting aspects to this paper.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for this straightforward comment.

That was indeed a hugely amusing comment. I particularly liked the total failure of Vixen's to spot the ironic contradiction inherent in her use of the adjective "reliable"

 

[acbytesla]

I am very straight.

That's too bad.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is a 2004 study by C. Peel and P. Gill that is worth reading in this context. Known blood stains were diluted or left to age. They became negative toward the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of DNA for profiling before they became negative for blood by a presumptive test, which in this experiment was the leucomalachite green test. "A positive presumptive test could be obtained from samples when a profile originating from the body fluid was no longer detectable." There are other interesting aspects to this paper.

Exactly. There's an extremely good reason why the forensic protocol with potential blood samples is to perform a presumptive field test first - and I believe the two-part TMB* test is the most common of these tests performed these days. If the presumptive test is negative, then it's effectively a slam-dunk that no DNA test will give usable results.

Stefanoni performed a TMB test. It was negative. QED. (Then she lied about that......)


* Incidentally, the dilution numbers being quoted by Vixen (the ones in which she's trying to show how "bad" TMB is against Luminol) are for combined "one shot" TMB tests (e.g. Hemastix). But the two-part TMB test has much higher sensitivity to dilution ratios, and a much higher statistical sensitivity (i.e. the true positive rate).

 

[Vixen]

That was indeed a hugely amusing comment. I particularly liked the total failure of Vixen's to spot the ironic contradiction inherent in her use of the adjective "reliable"

So amusing to watch the irony of your failure to pick up my irony.

 

[Vixen]

There is a 2004 study by C. Peel and P. Gill that is worth reading in this context. Known blood stains were diluted or left to age. They became negative toward the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of DNA for profiling before they became negative for blood by a presumptive test, which in this experiment was the leucomalachite green test. "A positive presumptive test could be obtained from samples when a profile originating from the body fluid was no longer detectable." There are other interesting aspects to this paper.

Whilst academic research provides us with a road map, in the real world police have to use any number of resources and techniques to solve a crime.

There is no requirement for any forensic test to be of absolute 100% academic standard. Perpetrators will lie and set out to conceal any incriminating sign of their presence at the scene.

A crime scene is rarely sterile, there may even be bluebottles and flies and all kinds of dirt.

The art is in piecing all of the evidence together to construct a reasonable facsimile of the crime scenario. Thus a speck on someone's glove is not going to be a deal breaker for an efficient and effective forensics team.