Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Fulcanelli]

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

And the police all stated otherwise on the stand. Amanda is also a known liar, which doesn't help. And...since her questioning began at midnight and she signed her statement at 1:45 am, I don't think an hour and forty five minutes is a long time for little precious to go without being presented with a menu at the police station, which some seem to think should have doubled as a five star hotel.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

I didn't know that! That's interesting.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

It's not right for C & V to impose 'standards' and 'protocols' from outside Europe on the ILE. Big difference.

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

No. The slide I posted was from Stefanoni's court presentation, in 2009.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No. The slide I posted was from Stefanoni's court presentation, in 2009.

So? Using FBI data for a specific reason is fine. It doesn't mean then that you are suddenly bound by their protocols. This is what C & V were doing, trying to impose American protocols on an Italian CSI department that has its own protocols. For some strange reason, you seem to think it does.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I didn't know that! That's interesting.

It is interesting and it is supported by the evidence. The order of the testing is what I question. Luminol/TMB/DNA or Luminol/DNA/TMB. Maybe someone has a reference for that one?

The rest of the visible Samples leading to the door tested positive for the DNA of the victim. Here are a couple of charts Stefanoni presented showing the results. Rep 191 is the last sample by the door, leading out of the house.

Rep.186 – Sample of presumed blood substance, found on the floor between the door that has access to the corridor and the second single bed room (sample F) – page 145 A.F./228 R.;
Rep.187 – Sample of presumed blood substance with a fragmented margin found on the floor between the sofa attached to the left wall and the table (sample G) – page 145 A.F./228 R.;
Rep.188 – Sample of presumed blood substance with a fragmented margin found on the floor between the sofa attached to the left wall and the table, in front of the refrigerator (sample I) – page 147 A.F./230 R.;
Rep.189 – Sample of presumed blood substance probably a shoe print, stringy form found on the floor between the sofa and the table, in correspondence of the refrigerator (sample H) – page 147 A.F./230 R.;
Rep. 190 – Sample of presumed blood substance of stringy shape, found on the floor between the sofa and the refrigerator, behind sample H (sample Y) – page 148 A.F./231 R.
Rep.191 – sample of presumed blood substance of ovoid shape, found on the floor in correspondence to the entry door of the apartment (sample J) – page 148 A.F./231 R.;

 

[RoseMontague]

Left a few out, attached:

Rep.119 – Sample of presumed blood substance of pseudo-circular shape taken from the floor of the corridor, in the front half of the floor (sample 3) – page 132 A.F./159 R.;
Rep.120 – Sample of presumed blood of pseudo-circular shape, taken from the floor of the corridor, on a level with the bedroom adjacent to that where the body was found (sample 2) – page 132 A.F./159 R.;
Rep.121 – Hair formation found on the floor below the clotheshorse (sample 10) – page 133 A.F./160 R.;
Rep.122 – Sample of presumed blood substance of pseudo-circular shape taken in correspondence of the door where the corridor has access to the living room with kichenette (sample 11) – page 134 A.F./162 R.;

 

[RoseMontague]

So? Using FBI data for a specific reason is fine. It doesn't mean then that you are suddenly bound by their protocols. This is what C & V were doing, trying to impose American protocols on an Italian CSI department that has its own protocols. For some strange reason, you seem to think it does.

For some strange reason, every time I ask what is the big difference between the European ones and the American ones, nobody has an answer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

sherlockh,

What was the TMB-positive substance on the window sill?

 

[RoseMontague]

I just don't understand the argument about American vs European standards. For example is there a European standard that does not recommend changing gloves after testing one sample and then testing another? I would like to see these standards that justify some of the things that Stefanoni's team did.

 

[RoseMontague]

sherlockh,

What was the TMB-positive substance on the window sill?

Good question.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is interesting and it is supported by the evidence. The order of the testing is what I question. Luminol/TMB/DNA or Luminol/DNA/TMB. Maybe someone has a reference for that one?

I'm guessing (and it is a guess), that it was Luminol/TMB/DNA.

The luminol being first is certain, because the purpose of that is to reveal invisible traces and you can't DNA or TMB test invisible traces unless you reveal them first. I'm guessing they used the TMB both in the hope of a positive double presumptive test, and also to give them an indication of 'how much' material they had to play with. If the TMB came back positive, then they would be looking at a high level of DNA, if it came back negative then they were looking at LCN levels at best. That then would dictate how much of the sample they would give over for DNA test. Of course, they wouldn't have used luminol on any of Rudy's footprints, as they didn't need it for those as his were visible traces.

The TMB not registering the blood in Rudy's last visible print says a lot about its sensitivity level and why it cannot be used for positively ruling out the presence of blood, especially with very small/low volume samples. If it can't detect a faint but clearly visible sample, how then can it detect one that is invisible due to low volume or because it has been cleaned.

 

[Fulcanelli]

For some strange reason, every time I ask what is the big difference between the European ones and the American ones, nobody has an answer.

Because nobody knows. All that is known is that Dr Stefanoni has stated that the crime scene examination/evidence collection complied with all Italian protocols while the lab work complied with the European protocols that her department uses. C & V (or any of the defence consultants) didn't seem to contest that.

But in any case, it isn't quite so simple to answer how they differ since there probably isn't one set of universal US protocols and they may differ from state to state. That makes any comparison problematic.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I just don't understand the argument about American vs European standards. For example is there a European standard that does not recommend changing gloves after testing one sample and then testing another? I would like to see these standards that justify some of the things that Stefanoni's team did.

But they did change gloves, they just didn't film it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

sherlockh,

What was the TMB-positive substance on the window sill?

It could actually be a false positive. They didn't get DNA out of it and TMB only has a 50/50 correct hit rate, being highly prone to false positives. Was a confirmatory test on the sample done? There should have been enough material for one as well as a DNA test.

 

[sherlockh]

sherlockh,

What was the TMB-positive substance on the window sill?

I am guessing blood. Did I win something?

 

[sherlockh]

It is interesting and it is supported by the evidence. The order of the testing is what I question. Luminol/TMB/DNA or Luminol/DNA/TMB. Maybe someone has a reference for that one?

I got it from this part in the Massei report.

But it must be noted that the negative result for blood does not necessarily indicate that no blood was present. The result may have been negative because there was not sufficient material to indicate the presence of blood. Dr. Gino stated that in her experience there is a probabilistic relation to the number of cases in which the blood test comes out positive or negative. The negative result was also partly a consequence of Dr. Stefanoni's choice to use most of the DNA to determine the individual profiles and only the remainder to attempt to determine the nature of the trace.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I just don't understand the argument about American vs European standards. For example is there a European standard that does not recommend changing gloves after testing one sample and then testing another? I would like to see these standards that justify some of the things that Stefanoni's team did.

RoseMontague,

On the issue of how frequently to change gloves, Stefanoni (as can be seen in the Massei report) is out of step with the majority of opinion. On page 38 of John Butler's textbook "Forensic DNA Typing," he wrote, "Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. Gloves should be changed between handling of different items of evidence." At Forensic Magazine in “Evidence Handling and Collection” Dick Warrington wrote, “Go about collecting evidence. I can’t say enough about avoiding cross contamination. Put on gloves, use gloves, change gloves. Do that every time you touch a piece of evidence. Likewise, use disposable tweezers, scalpels, etc. Change these each time they are used, as well.” Warrington also wrote an article for Forensic Magazine called “DNA Collection and Packaging,” that discusses gloves and tweezers. Orchid Cellmark’s guidelines state, “Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. It is recommended the gloves be
changed between the collection of each item of evidence.” Good forensic science does not change when one crosses a border.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am guessing blood. Did I win something?

sherlockh,

So how did it get there?

 

[sherlockh]

sherlockh,

So how did it get there?

I don't know. You are asking me to speculate. There is 3 people who had Meredith's blood on them, so they are on the top of my list. I think the trace is a bit too small to have been the result of a glass cut. Maybe it was old and from Filomena since I have no idea if she ever cleaned her window sill