Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Malkmus]

Hmmmmmm ... there were mushrooms in the fridge, there were mushrooms in her stomach contents (IIRC) and the autopsy report states that there was a mushroom in her esophagus but hey, maybe it was an apple. Luminol reveals blood at crime scenes everywhere in the world but, in Perugia, luminol does not work. If it reveals anything, it was the turnip.

I'm not seeing the correlation between the mushroom found in Meredith's throat and the luminol prints testing negative for blood. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Also, could you cite whoever said that Luminol works everywhere in the world except Perugia, and can you define work in the context of luminol?

 

[otto]

Neither is the prosecutor.

The prosecutor makes the decision to proceed to trial.

 

[otto]

I'm not seeing the correlation between the mushroom found in Meredith's throat and the luminol prints testing negative for blood. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Also, could you cite whoever said that Luminol works everywhere in the world except Perugia, and can you define work in the context of luminol?

No problem. Go back and look at the post I responded to and you will see that the post included the two points.

No, I'm not going to split the luminol hair with you. Luminol is used to reveal blood and in every US case that I've ever read about, blood is exactly what is revealed with luminol. There is no debate about whether someone traipsed around with turnip juice on their feet, or whether there is turnip juice under the dead body. In Perugia, for some bizarre and inexplicable reason, luminol only detects something like turnip juice. I think the better question is why there is such an earnest effort to negate the luminol evidence.

 

[Malkmus]

The prosecutor makes the decision to proceed with to trial.

That may be the case, random IMO, but Salem's post specifically said the judge and jury, and I don't believe the prosecution has a part in the decision-making of the verdict which is what she was referring to. That being said, I don't think any "bashing" is necessary, but non-emotional criticism is.

 

[emyr]

Hmmmmmm ... there were mushrooms in the fridge, there were mushrooms in her stomach contents (IIRC) and the autopsy report states that there was a mushroom in her esophagus but hey, maybe it was an apple. Luminol reveals blood at crime scenes everywhere in the world but, in Perugia, luminol does not work. If it reveals anything, it was the turnip.

The reports say there were no mushrooms in her stomach. Dr Lalli said it did not match anything in her stomach. It was the opinion of Dr Lalli from looking at the item with his eyes, that it was a mushroom. The object was placed in a vial at that time. The defense asked that it be tested, because they thought it might be something that did match her stomach contents, which would definiively move back the TOD. I don't know when they made the request.

 

[SMK]

I never did expect Clinton or Obama to speak up, but:

Why Won’t the State Department Speak Up for Amanda Knox?

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Why-Wont-the-State-Department-Speak-Up-for-Amanda-_11/2940131

 

[Malkmus]

No problem. Go back and look at the post I responded to and you will see that the post included the two points.

This was the post you responded to:

There was an open pack of mushrooms in their fridge. :innocent:

I'm still not seeing the correlation between every single one of the prints revealed in Luminol testing negative for blood and the mushroom.

No, I'm not going to split the luminol hair with you. Luminol is used to reveal blood and in every US case that I've ever read about, blood is exactly what is revealed with luminol. There is no debate about whether someone traipsed around with turnip juice on their feet, or whether there is turnip juice under the dead body. In Perugia, for some bizarre and inexplicable reason, luminol only detects something like turnip juice. I think the better question is why there is such an earnest effort to negate the luminol evidence.

The better question might be why did all the Luminol prints test negative for blood, and why did Stefanoni hide those results from the jury?

 

[otto]

That may be the case, random IMO, but Salem's post specifically said the judge and jury, and I don't believe the prosecution has a part in the decision-making of the verdict which is what she was referring to. That being said, I don't think any "bashing" is necessary, but non-emotional criticism is.

Are you looking for wiggle room to continue bashing the prosecutors?

I'm very busy trying to stay neutral in the Caylee forum after a very surprising verdict was handed down. So maybe I'll just add a reminder here also because we are getting so close - NO bashing the decision maker(s) no matter what the final outcome is in this case, okay?

Keep in mind that the judge/jury doesn't necessarily care what the popular opinion is - oh my! :innocent:

Salem

Looks to me like "decision makers" and ... next sentence ... judge/jury doesn't care about popular opinion.

 

[otto]

The reports say there were no mushrooms in her stomach. Dr Lalli said it did not match anything in her stomach. It was the opinion of Dr Lalli from looking at the item with his eyes, that it was a mushroom. The object was placed in a vial at that time. The defense asked that it be tested, because they thought it might be something that did match her stomach contents, which would definiively move back the TOD. I don't know when they made the request.

Maybe it was a carrot.

 

[dgfred]

Maybe Malkmus has emyr on ignore

 

[otto]

This was the post you responded to:



I'm still not seeing the correlation between every single one of the prints revealed in Luminol testing negative for blood and the mushroom.



The better question might be why did all the Luminol prints test negative for blood, and why did Stefanoni hide those results from the jury?

This is the post I was responding to:

Just checked out this interesting thing in the randi forum:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=196814&page=278

They say the defense requested a test of the food fragment, but it has not been done. All that is known for certain is that there was an unknown food fragment in her throat, possibly from the mushrooms that were in the refrigerator, or possibly regurgitated from her previous meal.

I was struck by something further down however. A poster stated that they tested the footprints with both luminol and TMB. The result, either way, is that the footprints were not made in blood because: the forensic team states the footprints flouresced in a way to indicate blood under luminol, but did not show up at all under the TMB test. If the presence of blood was strong enough to flouresce in such a way under luminol, then the TMB test would HAVE to be able to detect it. Therefore it cannot be blood. If the luminol had flouresced in an INDETERMINATE manner, and then the TMB had no reaction, then it is possible it is blood. That is not what the forensic analysts said.

So the footprints were not made in blood.

And ... why are you focused on the fact that people address two separate points in one post? Is that a problem?

 

[emyr]

This is from the randi forum, by user Kaosium:

What the TMB test does, along with common sense forensic methods (a perfectly square 'hit' is highly likely to be where a lamp's metal base sat for years, causing some of the metal to adhere to the floor as opposed to it being blood which just happened to 'pool' in a perfect square) is winnow out the non-blood hits, as TMB is more selective than luminol which lights up everything. It doesn't matter if it's 250 from that one study, or less with Hemaglow or Bluestar so they can sell more of their luminol-like product.

If ILE is using the TMB test it suggests they know this too ( ) as does the FBI which does the same thing. Spray down the scene with luminol, look for the ones whose shape and position suggest they might be blood, and then apply the TMB test which will help verify it. Then they take it to the lab and someone looks at it under the scope and confirms it.

In this case they tried to say they sprayed the luminol, and noted a distinctive CL pattern generally only found with blood and stuff that contains about eight certain metal and vegetable components, (which is a lot more than eight total things if you think about it!) and then when the TMB test was negative they stopped, it not being blood as a negative is a (virtual) absolute. Blood was not 'proven'--period. However, they later didn't reveal the negative TMB test and Comodi tried to pretend it was still possible it was blood, 'or it could be turnip juice, you decide.' This is known as being deceptive in my view, though it's possible being a lawyer who didn't know better that someone fed her that line because it sure makes it sound like it's more possible it was blood, doesn't it?

Now there is a way you can get a positive hit with luminol and a negative one with TMB, and that's if the dilution of the blood is below the 1:1M level, as luminol can detect at extremity blood down to concentrations as low as 1:5M. Thus perhaps it was diluted so much so that TMB couldn't pick it up but luminol could. Maybe it could still be blood, you might be thinking! Nope, because if it is diluted to that extreme you don't get that distinctive pattern, which should be common sense, however it has to do with the reageants in the luminol-based product having only a tiny fraction of things to catalyze with to give off that cool glow.

So if Stefanoni saw that distinctive pattern then the concentration of the blood was undiluted enough that the TMB negative proves it wasn't blood.

 

[otto]

Maybe Malkmus has emyr on ignore

Must be, otherwise Malkmus would have asked Emyr why two points were made in one response.

 

[Malkmus]

Are you looking for wiggle room to continue bashing the prosecutors?



Looks to me like "decision makers" and ... next sentence ... judge/jury doesn't care about popular opinion.

How about we just not bash anyone. Period.

 

[otto]

This is from the randi forum, by user Kaosium:

What the TMB test does, along with common sense forensic methods (a perfectly square 'hit' is highly likely to be where a lamp's metal base sat for years, causing some of the metal to adhere to the floor as opposed to it being blood which just happened to 'pool' in a perfect square) is winnow out the non-blood hits, as TMB is more selective than luminol which lights up everything. It doesn't matter if it's 250 from that one study, or less with Hemaglow or Bluestar so they can sell more of their luminol-like product.

If ILE is using the TMB test it suggests they know this too ( ) as does the FBI which does the same thing. Spray down the scene with luminol, look for the ones whose shape and position suggest they might be blood, and then apply the TMB test which will help verify it. Then they take it to the lab and someone looks at it under the scope and confirms it.

In this case they tried to say they sprayed the luminol, and noted a distinctive CL pattern generally only found with blood and stuff that contains about eight certain metal and vegetable components, (which is a lot more than eight total things if you think about it!) and then when the TMB test was negative they stopped, it not being blood as a negative is a (virtual) absolute. Blood was not 'proven'--period. However, they later didn't reveal the negative TMB test and Comodi tried to pretend it was still possible it was blood, 'or it could be turnip juice, you decide.' This is known as being deceptive in my view, though it's possible being a lawyer who didn't know better that someone fed her that line because it sure makes it sound like it's more possible it was blood, doesn't it?

Now there is a way you can get a positive hit with luminol and a negative one with TMB, and that's if the dilution of the blood is below the 1:1M level, as luminol can detect at extremity blood down to concentrations as low as 1:5M. Thus perhaps it was diluted so much so that TMB couldn't pick it up but luminol could. Maybe it could still be blood, you might be thinking! Nope, because if it is diluted to that extreme you don't get that distinctive pattern, which should be common sense, however it has to do with the reageants in the luminol-based product having only a tiny fraction of things to catalyze with to give off that cool glow.

So if Stefanoni saw that distinctive pattern then the concentration of the blood was undiluted enough that the TMB negative proves it wasn't blood.

Does that particular person on that other forum have any expertise or training in that particular area? Is there a scientific link to support the opinion, or is it just an opinion from some nobody?

 

[otto]

How about we just not bash anyone. Period.

No problem. I'll be careful to restrict my responses to one topic at a time.

 

[Malkmus]

This is the post I was responding to:



And ... why are you focused on the fact that people address two separate points in one post? Is that a problem?

Emyr made a clear distinction between the two points. The way you wrote your response (to fred's comment btw) was confusing because it was written as one thought as if the two are tied.

 

[emyr]

Does that particular person on that other forum have any expertise or training in that particular area? Is there a scientific link to support the opinion, or is it just an opinion from some nobody?

I have no idea, but it sure sounds good. :crazy: The next step would be to confirm if all of these items are true:

1) Luminol Test was positive and forensics claimed it was a distinctive CL pattern.
2) TMB test was negative.

And is this statement also true:

Now there is a way you can get a positive hit with luminol and a negative one with TMB, and that's if the dilution of the blood is below the 1:1M level, as luminol can detect at extremity blood down to concentrations as low as 1:5M. Thus perhaps it was diluted so much so that TMB couldn't pick it up but luminol could. Maybe it could still be blood, you might be thinking! Nope, because if it is diluted to that extreme you don't get that distinctive pattern, which should be common sense, however it has to do with the reageants in the luminol-based product having only a tiny fraction of things to catalyze with to give off that cool glow.

****
My thoughts: I know the TMB test was negative, I know the prosecution withheld that information from the test, don't know about the rest. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[otto]

I have no idea, but it sure sounds good. :crazy: The next step would be to confirm if all of these items are true:

1) Luminol Test was positive and forensics claimed it was a distinctive CL pattern.
2) TMB test was negative.

And is this statement also true:

Now there is a way you can get a positive hit with luminol and a negative one with TMB, and that's if the dilution of the blood is below the 1:1M level, as luminol can detect at extremity blood down to concentrations as low as 1:5M. Thus perhaps it was diluted so much so that TMB couldn't pick it up but luminol could. Maybe it could still be blood, you might be thinking! Nope, because if it is diluted to that extreme you don't get that distinctive pattern, which should be common sense, however it has to do with the reageants in the luminol-based product having only a tiny fraction of things to catalyze with to give off that cool glow.

****
My thoughts: I know the TMB test was negative, I know the prosecution withheld that information from the test, don't know about the rest. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

What sort of responses have been posted in response to the comment you brought over from another forum?

Is there a research paper or scientific study anywhere to learn more about this, or do you have training in biochemistry? I'm wondering where this information is coming from because I sure don't have luminol expertise facts in my head. How does the below article factor into the luminol opinion?

Here's some info about it: http://ezinearticles.com/?Forensic-...now-If-They-Are-Dealing-With-Blood?&id=869613

 

[SkewedView]

What sort of responses have been posted in response to the comment you brought over from another forum?

Is there a research paper or scientific study anywhere to learn more about this, or do you have training in biochemistry? I'm wondering where this information is coming from because I sure don't have luminol expertise facts in my head. How does the below article factor into the luminol opinion?

Here's some info about it: http://ezinearticles.com/?Forensic-...now-If-They-Are-Dealing-With-Blood?&id=869613

As per your linked article and numerous others, Luminol is a presumptive test, not a confirmatory one. In case there is confusion as to what that means, here's the wiki for those terms:
Presumptive and confirmatory tests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In medical and forensic science, a presumptive test is an analysis of a sample which establishes either:

1. The sample is definitely not a certain substance
2. The sample probably is the substance.

For example, the Kastle-Meyer test will show that a sample is not blood, or that the sample is probably blood (but it may be one of a range of less common substances). Further chemical testing is required to prove that the substance is blood.

Confirmatory tests are the tests required to confirm the analysis. Confirmatory tests cost more than simpler presumptive tests, which is why presumptive tests are often made to see if confirmatory tests are necessary.

Or we can look at the legal definition here:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/presumptive-test/

A presumptive test is one used in criminal investigations which is not conclusive, but is used to screen for the presence of a substance. For example, a presumptive test may be used to determine the presence of blood, seminal fluid, or drugs. The results of a presumptive test will not conclusively prove or disprove the presence of the substance.

And here's a great little article about presumptive tests:
http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/blood-presumptive-test

Properly done, a blood presumptive test rules out the possibility that a fluid is blood. A blood presumptive test relies on the use of chemicals that will change color when in the presence of blood. As one common example, a solution of phenolphthalein, which is colorless, will turn an intense pink when added to a blood stain in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. The formation of a pink color indicates that the fluid could be, and indeed, likely may be, blood. However, confirmation requires the more detailed lab analyses.

Also from the above article, a bit that is of key interest here, as we've seen how crappy the 'control' of the crime scene was (on video no less! :loser: ):

When a blood presumptive test is done at a crime or accident scene, an investigator must include the use of controls to ensure the accuracy of the result. This is because a blood presumptive test can be subject to what is known as a false positive result. This is when the characteristic color reaction is produced by a sample that is in fact not blood. As well, a false negative reaction is possible, where for some reason a blood sample does not produce the characteristic color change in the indicator chemical.

Standard procedures can rule out the possibility of a false positive or negative result. However, if these controls are not run, then the accuracy of the presumptive test can be questioned. In that case, the results would not be admissible in a court of law.

All bolds by me.

I'm sure that I can find case law on this, and my wife can get me access to bonified biotech papers on the subject if you want, but it's going to have to wait until we have a little less RL in our lives.:crazy: