Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Chris_Halkides]

W
I am rather confident that the next appeal court will listen to the experts and not to desperate defense lawyers claiming the impossible. That science rules out bleach and the appeal court still accepted the defense argument just goes to show how incompetent the previous appeal judge was.

What the experts have said is that there are many substances besides fruit juice and bleach that give positive results with presumptive blood tests. Certain transition metal ions including copper, cobalt, and iron, for example, give positive results with a number of presumptive test. The latest one I have found is that milk gives a positive result with the ortho-tolidene test (I have not yet found out the identity of the substance within milk). There are other cleaning supplies that give a positive result with luminol BTW. That is why the experts do confirmatory blood tests, often with antibodies that are specific to proteins found only in human blood. The luminol positive areas were negative by TMB; moreover, they don't form a trail. As evidence they would have been equivocal even if the luminol work had been done on or about 2 November. Given the delay and the sloppiness with which the lumino was applied, they are worse IMO.

 

[sherlockh]

What the experts have said is that there are many substances besides fruit juice and bleach that give positive results with presumptive blood tests. Certain transition metal ions including copper, cobalt, and iron, for example, give positive results with a number of presumptive test. The latest one I have found is that milk gives a positive result with the ortho-tolidene test (I have not yet found out the identity of the substance within milk). There are other cleaning supplies that give a positive result with luminol BTW. That is why the experts do confirmatory blood tests, often with antibodies that are specific to proteins found only in human blood. The luminol positive areas were negative by TMB; moreover, they don't form a trail. As evidence they would have been equivocal even if the luminol work had been done on or about 2 November. Given the delay and the sloppiness with which the lumino was applied, they are worse IMO.

Yah, defense 'experts' you mean. The real question is, how many react like blood does? The answer is only very few. Luminol is used to find non visible blood. If it is not visible then it is already unlikely that any confirmatory tests are possible. That is why these are not done. There is nothing strange about this.

One of the empirical tests for determining if a stain is blood is its appearance. If it is a bloodstain, then it should look like blood. A bloodstain also has to be present in sufficient quantity to perform confirmatory testing and testing for genetic markers. This requires that the bloodstain is visible to the naked eye. The luminol reaction is at best a presumptive test for blood. If the stain is so dilute that it can only be visualized with luminol, then no further analysis can be performed to confirm the presence of blood.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html

There is nothing strange about a negative TMB test because that is a 1,000 times less sensitive than Luminol. If the few substances that can react with Luminol besides blood can be excluded with certainty then the conclusion is that the Luminol reacted with blood. An experienced expert can even see if it is blood or not from the blood specific reaction. That is what happened here and happens in other cases where Luminol is used. When did they put this milk on their feet exactly? You have to give a likely alternative otherwise this conclusion stands and it is evidence. Just making a statement in general terms about iron or copper proves nothing.

For how many years have we not heard the myth that the footprints were made in bleach? I gave a few scientific sources stating that it is impossible for bleach to give a reaction with Luminol after 6 weeks. Yet, this myth has been kept up for years by the Knox campaign group. Why is it necessary to spread so much misinformation if it is so clear that she is innocent? Why?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The defense did not have discuss TMB much, other than Sarah Gino's testimony. The prosecution did not present anyone who qualifies as an expert. Based on the overapplication of luminol, I don't think anyone in the forensic police would qualify. I have seen ranges of sensitivities in the forensic literature for both TMB and luminol, but I have never seen anyone claim a 1000-fold ratio; therefore, I am skeptical of this number. TMB is often used as a follow-up test for luminol; if the only reason that one obtained a negative TMB after a positive luminol were a difference in sensitivity, there would be no reason to do so. A number of forensic references recommend the use of a colorimetric reagent such as TMB on areas that are luminol- or fluorescein-positive. Lisa A. Gefrides and Katherine E. Welch wrote, “Either luminol or fluorescein can be sprayed onto large surfaces such as walls or floors and the positive areas areas marked for further testing. Both tests are very sensitive and will indicate bloodstains that may not be visible…One disadvantage to these tests is that both can have false positive reactions. Luminol and fluorescein will react with the same false positives as PH [phenolphthalein] and also with bleach and other cleaning fluids, which may interfere with blood detection on surfaces that have been cleaned. For this reason fluorescein or luminol positive areas should be retested with one of the color change presumptive tests.” (“Serology and DNA” in “The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice,” Humana Press, 2006)

The other problem with what you have written is that you have reversed the burden of proof. It is up to the prosecution to prove blood, not for the defense to figure out what glowed due to an improperly performed luminol test. The 2009 article by Virkler and Lednev in Forensic Science International is one of many sources of reliable information on this subject.

The authors of one study (Hurley IP et al., Forensic Science International 190 (2009) 91–97) wrote, "Positive results for human IgG were obtained with both formats. The simple direct immunodot assay was able to detect an IgG concentration of 0.1 mg/mL, while the detection limit for the sandwich immunodot assay was 0.01 mg/mL compared with the control (no IgG)...Tokiwa et al. demonstrated a detection limit of 0.022 microgram/mL using an anti-HbA0 ELISA, compared to the limit of 0.01 microgram/mL IgG detected by the present study." Hematrace has a sensitivity of 0.07 microgram/mL I don't believe that the differences in sensitivities above are terribly important, but I included this information because it suggests that these confirmatory assays are pretty sensitive.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sherlockh, Even the link you provided acknowledges that luminol produces false positives: "Luminol will give false reactions. Luminol will react with copper ions, copper compounds, iron compounds, and cobalt ions. It will also react with potassium permanganate (found in some dyes) and hydrated sodium hypochlorite (bleach).(6) Ferricyanide and plant peroxidases could also give false reactions.(7)" Soil and rust are two examples of substances containing metal ions. I suspect that any substance having hydrogen peroxide will also give a false positive.

 

[sherlockh]

Sherlockh, Even the link you provided acknowledges that luminol produces false positives: "Luminol will give false reactions. Luminol will react with copper ions, copper compounds, iron compounds, and cobalt ions. It will also react with potassium permanganate (found in some dyes) and hydrated sodium hypochlorite (bleach).(6) Ferricyanide and plant peroxidases could also give false reactions.(7)" Soil and rust are two examples of substances containing metal ions. I suspect that any substance having hydrogen peroxide will also give a false positive.

Yes, and every investigator and expert knows these limitations of Luminol beforehand. They already know that they can't scientifically prove the blood. They know this but still choose to use Luminol to find invisible traces. Not only in Italy, but Luminol is used worldwide at crime scenes. They wouldn't use it if it doesn't have any value. It makes no sense to keep saying that they have to prove the blood when you already know beforehand that this is impossible. After finding the traces investigators (judges) consider the alternatives and then draw conclusions.

In this case, it was concluded to have been blood because there is no alternative for blood, and it makes sense in the context of the crime scene. It is impossible to provide any alternative which makes any sense. The prosecution made it clear that there are none. Of course it is then up to the defense to provide alternatives. They tried that and failed. The footsteps go from the murder room to Knox her room. They are compatible with her footprints. Some even have DNA in them. It is all rather obvious that there wasn't some isolated soil event going on in front of the murder room.

Anyway, I just made a prediction about the upcoming appeal trial so we will see if I was right or wrong.

 

[TartLemon]

In all the promos for the April 30 interview, looks like AK has showered, washed her hair and dressed demurely. Totally opposite from all the previous photos.

IMO, AK is guilty as H**L! I hope she's finally made to pay for her crime against Meredith Kercher.

 

[Katie-L]

They are provisionally guilty. Just like they were provisionally acquitted before but strangely I didn't see any questions at that stage. In Italy there is only one trial which is only finished when the SC signs off, so there never will be any question of double jeopardy here. There is no *new trial ordered*. This is still the same trial. The stage where she was acquitted was illegal and cancelled by Italy's highest court. If the US doesn't agree with the Italian system then they wouldn't have an extradition treaty with Italy in the first place. Of course Italy will request the extradition of a murderer they just convicted.

Extradition treaties can be tricky. They are not based on whether 2 countries accept all provisions of the other's justice system.

Each treaty sets provisions under which an extradition is possible. Extradition would need to be formally requested by the Italian government. A US prosecutor would be assigned to review the evidence, a judge would likely need to agree that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial and then an extradition hearing would begin. That can take years.

With the Knox case - part of the treaty states that: "Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested."

In this case there was already a full trial, a recorded conviction, a sentence and partial serving of that sentence - then verdict was overturned.

Knox also didn't return to the US as a fugitive, she was released by the Italian Justice System - post trial.

These are very unusual circumstances for extradition.

 

[TartLemon]

Amanda Knox has not been acquitted.

 

[Katie-L]

Amanda Knox has not been acquitted.

But she was convicted and served time.

The extraditions that I've followed were always very complicated.

Don't know if you recall the Charles NG case (California Mass Murderer). He entered Canada illegally as a fugitive from justice and committed multiple crimes here almost immediately. It took years for the extradition, because it involved the Canadian Charter of Rights. ...and there was NO question of his guilt.

With the Knox case, the way Italian justice works (confirming a conviction after sentencing) is so opposite to US justice - that the double jeopardy clause in US law will be an issue. Possibly the deciding one.

From what I've seen in the extradition treaties (just a laymen's reading) - extradition of a fugitive is part of the treaty. Extradition of a national non-fugitive is a bit in the grey area.***

EDIT - Correction....
Just did a quick reading of the INTERAMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION -
According to Article 7 - Nationality is not given consideration, unless the state receiving the request has legal provisions applicable to the national.

In both instances though - the nation considering the request, has the right to apply their own internal legal standards with non-citizens and an obligation to do so with their own citizens.

Basically - if retrying her would be a violation of her rights in the US, and wouldn't be permitted under US law, the US government won't extradite.

If the Italian authorities have new evidence, extradition is more likely. If they want to try her again on the same evidence - it's highly unlikely.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

IMO, AK is guilty as H**L! I hope she's finally made to pay for her crime against Meredith Kercher.

What is your narrative and timeline of the crime?

 

[Katie-L]

Let's suppose that the conviction is confirmed and an extradition request is made. Let's suppose that the US refuses to honor the treaty agreement on the basis that US law does not permt the prosecution to appeal an appeal ruling.

How do you suppose that will go over in terms of the continued existence of that treaty? If the US is not prepared to honor a treaty, wouldn't that be a very good reason for Italy to terminate the agreement? Realistically speaking, if the agreement is only in place for the benefit of the US, then it should be revoked. Is the US willing to go that far in order to protect a woman convicted of murder in a European country?

The treaty permits any nation to reject an extradition request.

Knox is also not currently a convicted murderer - not by any law in the US or Italy.

By International and US law, Knox was tried, convicted, sentenced, served a portion of her sentence, made an appeal, won the appeal and was then acquitted due to insufficient evidence. She was released and was free to return to the US.

The peculiarities of the Italian justice system permit a do-over by the prosecution - even more than twice (until the higher court stops it). IIRC - that's all that's occurred here. Italy basically quashed the original conviction retroactively erasing everything as if it didn't happen.

Few nations in the world would accept that as a reason for extradition - and the treaty expressly prohibits it.

 

[Malkmus]

In all the promos for the April 30 interview, looks like AK has showered, washed her hair and dressed demurely. Totally opposite from all the previous photos.

IMO, AK is guilty as H**L! I hope she's finally made to pay for her crime against Meredith Kercher.

Amanda's appearance has long been a talking point among commenters in this case. I think it showcases the lack of actual evidence against her (and let's not forget Raf). I would ask what her appearance for an interview has to do with this but I think your post speaks for itself.

 

[sherlockh]

Amanda's appearance has long been a talking point among commenters in this case. I think it showcases the lack of actual evidence against her (and let's not forget Raf). I would ask what her appearance for an interview has to do with this but I think your post speaks for itself.

All the talk about extradition shows that most people realize that there is a ton of evidence all pointing at Knox and her ex-bf, and that they will be found guilty in the upcoming 2 appeal trials as well. I don't know what is so cool about making a murderer a national hero. Wendy Murphy says it better than I can:

The problem is that Americans love to fall in love with stories like this. They love to be riveted. The media loves the story of the attractive young defendant and the mystery and intrigue that goes along with it, which can lead to a skewed view of what is actually going on.

Legal Analyst Wendy Murphy says that if you just look at all the evidence, it's a fairly open and shut case...

http://www.kxl.com/03/26/13/Justice...landing_lars.html?blockID=675615&feedID=10628

 

[sherlockh]

Extradition treaties can be tricky. They are not based on whether 2 countries accept all provisions of the other's justice system.

Each treaty sets provisions under which an extradition is possible. Extradition would need to be formally requested by the Italian government. A US prosecutor would be assigned to review the evidence, a judge would likely need to agree that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial and then an extradition hearing would begin. That can take years.

With the Knox case - part of the treaty states that: "Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested."

In this case there was already a full trial, a recorded conviction, a sentence and partial serving of that sentence - then verdict was overturned.

Knox also didn't return to the US as a fugitive, she was released by the Italian Justice System - post trial.

These are very unusual circumstances for extradition.

Not under Italian law. The trial is still pending. There never was a full trial. They were imprisoned/released pending trial. The acquittal stage was declared illegal by Italy's highest court. If the US wants to overrule the decision by the Supreme Court of Italy and declare it legal anyway, then what is the point of having an extradition treaty?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

All the talk about extradition shows that most people realize that there is a ton of evidence all pointing at Knox and her ex-bf, and that they will be found guilty in the upcoming 2 appeal trials as well.

Actually, it was reading the Borsini motivation report about Guede, along with the Scazzi case, that really made me shake my head and say, "What were they thinking?" If Sabrina Misseri and her mother can be convicted, anyone can, regardless of the facts. As for Wendy Murphy, she got her facts massively wrong about the Duke lacrosse case and never apologized. Her articles on the present case have been likewise stuffed to the gunwales with misinformation. I think that the quote you provided comes from Lars Larson BTW, not Ms. Murphy herself. Calling Ms. Murphy a legal analyst is like calling Johnny Most a fair and balanced basketball announcer.

 

[sherlockh]

Actually, it was reading the Borsini motivation report about Guede, along with the Scazzi case, that really made me shake my head and say, "What were they thinking?" As for Wendy Murphy, she got her facts massively wrong about the Duke lacrosse case and never apologized. Her articles on the present case have been likewise stuffed to the gunwales with misinformation. I think that the quote you provided comes from Lars Larson BTW. Calling Ms. Murphy a legal analyst is like calling Johnny Most a fair and balanced basketball announcer.

And yet she has been a guest on this boards radio show several times. Go figure.
Tonight Tricia's True Crime Radio/Wendy Murphy - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Katie-L]

Not under Italian law. The trial is still pending. There never was a full trial. They were imprisoned/released pending trial. The acquittal stage was declared illegal by Italy's highest court. If the US wants to overrule the decision by the Supreme Court of Italy and declare it legal anyway, then what is the point of having an extradition treaty?

From all that I've read and understood and what's been published in Italy and the US - the acquittal was not, and is not declared "illegal".

EDIT - CORRECTION
In the Italian judicial system the prosecutor runs the entire investigation, trial, appeal and any subsequent legal moves. If he loses on appeal - he (personally) can directly ask the Supreme Court to go back to the beginning. That doesn't make the appeal illegal - it's an oddity of Italian justice that effectively erases everything.

But erasure by judicial order doesn't mean the trial didn't happen, nor that the appeal didn't occur. It just means that in Italy - the prosecutor can proceed as if none of it occurred. Because that system is not accepted in pretty much every other country in the world - a negative result from a 2nd trial can be interpreted by any other nation as retrying someone after they've been convicted - because that's exactly what it is. Also - if the 2nd disposition is "guilty" - the convicted are automatically granted an appeal. If they win, the prosecutor can again request to go back to the beginning.

I believe (though not positive) that in Italy -this cycle can go on indefinitely - unless the Supreme Court decides to stop it.

The European Union court routinely criticizes Italy's odd and dragged out system of justice.

Regarding Extradition Treaties - that's a whole different monster. Treaties in no way are ever understood or interpreted as an automatic means to transfer a person from one nation to another. The US has, in the past, refused extradition requests from Italy. Europe, in fact, has a set policy of refusing extradition requests from the US on all capital murder cases.

 

[sherlockh]

Illegal is illegal. No matter how you try to spin it. Some of the arguments for the acquittal were illegal and therefore the acquittal was annulled. It is not up to the US to declare what is illegal and what is not in Italy. There will be a report by the SC so we can all read the details later.

 

[Katie-L]

Illegal is illegal. No matter how you try to spin it. Some of the arguments for the acquittal were illegal and therefore the acquittal was annulled. It is not up to the US to declare what is illegal and what is not in Italy. There will be a report by the SC so we can all read the details later.

Where did you read that the appeal was ruled as illegal?

 

[sherlockh]

Where did you read that the appeal was ruled as illegal?

For the details we have to wait till the report comes out. If you have read the Galati appeal then you understand that it is what I expect.

By the way, this writer states that 'Requested Party' is the US and that Italy would be the Requesting Party so this whole discussion might be moot as she was never tried in the US.

The Requested Party in this scenario would be the United States (Italy would be the “Requesting Party&#8221. The U.S. has never charged Knox with anything, much less with the murder of her UK roommate. So Article VI does not bar Knox’ extradition to Italy. Period.

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/03/29/l...red-reading-the-u-s-italy-extradition-treaty/