Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Chris_Halkides]

I even read up to 1 million for Luminol. Rose posted a chart showing up to 800,000. So any traces diluted between 10,000 and 1 million times is the range we are talking about. Doesn't seem like such a small window to me.

Sherlockh,

In my original post I noted that I had seen a range of sensitivities for both TMB and luminol; therefore, one should not take my numbers as anything more than examples. The numbers I have seen would suggest that luminol is at best 10-100 fold more sensitive than TMB, and if that is the case, my point still stands. The difference is 80-fold in your example, and 80 is much smaller than 10,000. If time permits, I'll try to survey the numbers more generally.

The other point worth exploring is that (if one believes the samples to be blood) one has to invoke greater luminol sensitivity to explain every instance that TMB was negative. If the instances in which this happened are independent events, the odds start looking pretty long. I think a much better explanation is that forensic police sometimes use TMB to winnow the wheat from the chaff (this is what I have heard and what Sara Gino's testimony suggests). One would only proceed to confirmatory testing if the TMB were positive. This might explain the sample from the window sill (Rep. 198?), which tested positive by TMB but not by a confirmatory test.

 

[Salem]

WOW! You guys really forgot your manners today, didn't you? I just removed a page and 1/2 of your posts.

You all need to calm down and maybe take a break.

Salem

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thanks very much for this authoritative explanation. Even without it, in response to the obviously spurious arguments usually made by pro-guilt posters, I had surmised that the window between luminol's and TMB's respective efficacies would be very narrow indeed.

I realize that probabilities and percentages are somewhat komponisto's bailiwick, but would you be willing to hazard a guess at the percentages with regard to this happening in the Kercher case?

js202,

Sara Gino testified to the effect that about half of luminol-positive pieces of evidence were negative by TMB. I think that the odds of all of the luminol-positive/TMB negative pieces of evidence having a dilution of blood that falls into a 10-100 (rough estimate) window is pretty low. One also has to posit the same with respect to the absence of DNA.

However, I think it is far more significant what coathors of a recent review on the forensic testing of body fluids, Dr. Virkler and Dr. Lednev said about evidence that was luminol-positive/TMB-negative/DNA-negative in this case. “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.” Dr. Lednev has been appointed to a subcommittee to advise the government on the future of forensics, so I think these two scholars know what they are talking about.

 

[Allusonz]

Or maybe it was Gasp just a real break in?

I am still troubled by Rep 198 and 199. These are the two pieces of evidence that show a presumed blood substance and hair on the window (that was broken into). Massei just pretty much ignores this evidence because no DNA profile came up and the blood test was negative. Much like most of these Luminol prints. The appeal points out that further testing could have been done on the hair (this one is hair and not wool-the stage the hair was in is given in the test) using a different technique and amazingly, <Dr Steffi decided not to turn up the dial on either one of these samples.

IIRC this sample actually tested positive with TMB. You are quite correct though it is like it was ignored and the only thought I could come up with is that it did not match either AK or RS. It is something I have wondered about yet is rarely discussed

 

[Allusonz]

Thanks very much for this authoritative explanation. Even without it, in response to the obviously spurious arguments usually made by <modsnip>, I had surmised that the window between luminol's and TMB's respective efficacies would be very narrow indeed.

I realize that probabilities and percentages are somewhat komponisto's bailiwick, but would you be willing to hazard a guess at the percentages with regard to this happening in the Kercher case?

:welcome:

gives you a designer straight jacket they come in very handy for this thread

 

[Allusonz]

Oh, another question about Curatolo that's been nagging me... since he saw "the couple" talking from 9:30 until they left around 11:30 to go "prank" Amanda''s roommate with real knives, why no mention of them meeting Rudy?

This is a trick question right? (teasing) Hard to distinguish amoung all those vampires :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

Or maybe it was Gasp just a real break in?

I am still troubled by Rep 198 and 199. These are the two pieces of evidence that show a presumed blood substance and hair on the window (that was broken into). Massei just pretty much ignores this evidence because no DNA profile came up and the blood test was negative. Much like most of these Luminol prints. The appeal points out that further testing could have been done on the hair (this one is hair and not wool-the stage the hair was in is given in the test) using a different technique and amazingly, <Dr Steffi decided not to turn up the dial on either one of these samples.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

OMG ok the post of the day. You mean that there are actually real break ins? Sorry quirky sense of humour again lol

 

[Allusonz]

<modsnip>

The partial clean-up as described by Judge Massei in his sentencing report...and that as described by Judge Micheli un his. That partial clean-up.

The lamp...Amanda put her lamp in Meredith's room, most likely to aid with the partial clean-up. Again, this is in the Massei Report.

There may have been many points that were cleaned in Meredith's room and that can't be detected because the amount of blood in there made luminol use impractical.

<modsnip>?


The mark on Amanda's neck was not a 'hickey', not the witnesses who saw said it wasn't a 'hickey'. <modsnip>. I'll go with the witnesses.

Guede wasn't cleaning. He left straight away. And he didn't come in through the window, he came in through the front door. Amanda Knox let him in.

No matter which angle I view this from, horizontal, vertical, diagonally there is simply not one shred of evidence to support it.

 

[Allusonz]

She could just as easily have used documentation from somewhere else. She just happened to use that.

Have you considered, that Dr Stefanoni was using FBI data, to counter the fact that C & V had tried to use FBI data to condemn her work?

Just checking to make sure I understand this right. So it is ok for Stephanoni to use documentation/cites from outside of Europe but not C & V. That appears to be a double standard

 

[sherlockh]

js202,

Sara Gino testified to the effect that about half of luminol-positive pieces of evidence were negative by TMB. I think that the odds of all of the luminol-positive/TMB negative pieces of evidence having a dilution of blood that falls into a 10-100 (rough estimate) window is pretty low. One also has to posit the same with respect to the absence of DNA.

However, I think it is far more significant what coathors of a recent review on the forensic testing of body fluids, Dr. Virkler and Dr. Lednev said about evidence that was luminol-positive/TMB-negative/DNA-negative in this case. “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.” Dr. Lednev has been appointed to a subcommittee to advise the government on the future of forensics, so I think these two scholars know what they are talking about.

Or the DNA testing didn't leave enough for a positive TMB test. Dr. Virkler and Dr. Lednev seem to 'forget' that (or maybe they didn't have that information?). And since most of those tests didn't reveal any DNA, we can already conclude that if the trace was blood then it must have been very little.

So based on the IMO large window, negative DNA results for several of those traces, DNA testing before TMB testing, latent and most likely diluted traces in the first place, and keeping in mind that Stefanoni had a negative result on Rudy's last shoe print (and that wasn't even diluted), I consider 'the odds' very high.

So then I see no problem in letting the judges make a reasonable assessment based on other information we have about the crime scene. JMO.

 

[Allusonz]

Yes...little specs...AROUND the print. And yes, it would have been dispersing off their bodies. Especially after they'd washed up and it was mixed with water.

Then how do you explain the specs on the forensic teams booties and rulers?

Sorry this reasoning does not hold up under scrutiny

 

[Allusonz]

Tiny mice aren't necessary. Water sprays off of the body in tiny droplets when you shake your hands....after say, just coming out of the bathroom after just washing blood off them.

They've proved it to the court's satisfaction. And to mine.

Then please explain to me how while they were locked up they were able to spray the forensic teams booties and rulers?

 

[Allusonz]

I'll ask again. Why then, is this soil iron not all over the cottage? Why is it limited to a mere 3 footprints in the hallway, a blob in Filomena's room and some footprints in Amanda's room? Why is there not more then that and why is it not anywhere else is the cottage? Are Knox and Sollecito the only ones who have stepped in that soil (barefoot apparently) that has been there for hundreds of years and if so, why? Why are there not tracks of them treading said soil into the house via the front door? How did it get there? Why does this iron from soil suddenly only appear in the depths of the house? What are the defence not trying to argue it was soil? Why did Rudy leave none of his prints from this soil, despite supposedly walking around the property in it on a damp night in order to climb up to the window?

As I stated if my post had of been read it reacts to over 250+ items. I have seen many here post links with respect to luminol and TMB and I now must ask if any of them have been read? I have to asume not thus I must also start to question why?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh, another question about Curatolo that's been nagging me... since he saw "the couple" talking from 9:30 until they left around 11:30 to go "prank" Amanda''s roommate with real knives, why no mention of them meeting Rudy?

Perhaps if you actually read my posts I won't have to answer points I've already answered. Curatolo never said he saw them FROM 9:30 UNTIL 11:30. He said he saw them AT 9:30 and AGAIN 'at' 11:30. In other words, he saw them twice, he wasn't observing them throughout the period in between, he was reading his magazine.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No matter which angle I view this from, horizontal, vertical, diagonally there is simply not one shred of evidence to support it.

You have to open your eyes first.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Then please explain to me how while they were locked up they were able to spray the forensic teams booties and rulers?

For the third time. Perhaps third time lucky? It's reflected light from the flourescing of the luminol.

 

[Fulcanelli]

IIRC this sample actually tested positive with TMB. You are quite correct though it is like it was ignored and the only thought I could come up with is that it did not match either AK or RS. It is something I have wondered about yet is rarely discussed

Shed hairs cannot be DNA tested, only hairs that have been 'pulled out' and you have the root.

 

[Fulcanelli]

js202,

Sara Gino testified to the effect that about half of luminol-positive pieces of evidence were negative by TMB. I think that the odds of all of the luminol-positive/TMB negative pieces of evidence having a dilution of blood that falls into a 10-100 (rough estimate) window is pretty low. One also has to posit the same with respect to the absence of DNA.

However, I think it is far more significant what coathors of a recent review on the forensic testing of body fluids, Dr. Virkler and Dr. Lednev said about evidence that was luminol-positive/TMB-negative/DNA-negative in this case. “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.” Dr. Lednev has been appointed to a subcommittee to advise the government on the future of forensics, so I think these two scholars know what they are talking about.

Not really, considering over half the luminol marks were the footprints which were laid down after Raffaele and Amanda had washed their feet and hence why the samples were so small (per massei).

How could it be plant matter on the bottom of shoes when the footprints were barefoot? Is Lednev an idiot?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sherlockh,

In my original post I noted that I had seen a range of sensitivities for both TMB and luminol; therefore, one should not take my numbers as anything more than examples. The numbers I have seen would suggest that luminol is at best 10-100 fold more sensitive than TMB, and if that is the case, my point still stands. The difference is 80-fold in your example, and 80 is much smaller than 10,000. If time permits, I'll try to survey the numbers more generally.

The other point worth exploring is that (if one believes the samples to be blood) one has to invoke greater luminol sensitivity to explain every instance that TMB was negative. If the instances in which this happened are independent events, the odds start looking pretty long. I think a much better explanation is that forensic police sometimes use TMB to winnow the wheat from the chaff (this is what I have heard and what Sara Gino's testimony suggests). One would only proceed to confirmatory testing if the TMB were positive. This might explain the sample from the window sill (Rep. 198?), which tested positive by TMB but not by a confirmatory test.

10 - 100 fold more sensitive is a hell of a lot!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually, Knox supporters who have visited the site in person as well judge Micheli have said this. I don't remember Massei saying it was impossible either.



Amanda stated during the first trial she was denied food and water until she signed the statement. I haven't heard otherwise.

there's a big difference between 'possible' and 'probable'. Space aliens and Bigfoot are also possible. I'm not really interested in possible.