Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[MichaelSmith]

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/d...ocence-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

GOODBYE “FALSE ALIBI”

How can the alibi be failed, or even false, if Raffaele was at home using his two computers? Did he burn one of them and delete the activity from the other one, as they had said? No, the cops did, so they made the alibi fail, not him. Maori showed the residual activity on the Apple (because the Acer hard disk was, as we know, completely fried). What deleted most of the data on the Apple was an event that happened at 6.20 on November 6, while Raffaele was in the police station. So it wasn’t him, it was them.

What did the police recover from that computer? Only the starting of Amelie, and the music file at 5:30 am. Then the defense examined it, and they were able to recover as well the opening of the cartoon Naruto at 9:26 pm (“What?” Nencini asked…..“The cartoon Naruto, President. NARUTO, it’s a CARTOON.” As usual the defense points seem to sound completely new to him). The cartoon remained open until the crash of 6:20.

More at the link.

 

[aa9511]

That is from the fake wiki. You need to remember TMB is a blood specific test where as luminol isn't.

What about Amber's link re: TMB is less senstive than luminol. Can you please tell me where you are getting your information from? You make it sound like fact, although it is hard to tell what is fact and what is not because there are differing things being said. Thanks.

 

[Bill C]

Ok, thanks, yes that was a very clear explanation.

Please tell me this - if this sample that was tested was so so sooooooooo LOW that the supporters of her innocence are always emphasizing - how is it that in this LOOOOOWWWW sample, managed to land Meredith's DNA from somewhere (contamination)? On that precise, itty-bitty, pinpoint of a place??

The DNA did not necessarily EVER come into contact with the knife. It could have easily come from the lab where the testing took place. Remember. that same lab conducted tests on a much larger quantity of MK's DNA just 6 days earlier to serve as a reference against which evidence could be tested. At least part of the equipment used to test the knife probably was the same equipment used 6 days earlier. Is it such a stretch to imagine that an "itty-bitty piece" of the DNA used as a standard remained on the equipment and contaminated the sample swabbed from the knife? In most Western justice systems it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove evidence they present is solid and DNA evidence is not contaminated. In this case the ISC appears to have reversed the burdon of proof and said that it is the defenses burdon to prove contamination. This is a real catch-22 since it is next to impossible to prove contamination after the fact whereas the prosecution could have proven no contamination at the time of the study if they had done 2 samples and performed the expected control experiments.

 

[aa9511]

From your link, she says she dried her feet on the mat, not that she shuffled it to her bedroom. Even if she did, well, I've done that when my feet were wet and I didn't want to get the floor wet which would mean dirtying another towel to clean up the wet floor after.

How would the bathmat keep footprints from showing up under luminol? It apparently didn't even smudge Rudy's shoe prints.

LOL - Apparently Amanda did not think of that when she made up her bathmat story. We cannot be expected to answer for her misjudgement.

Since Amanda included even little details in her e-mail home, how come she forgot her "bathmat shuffle" in that one?

 

[aa9511]

If you read what she posted it says they applied bleach then immediately tested with TMB. Do you believe at the cottage shortly before the luminol was applied they poured bleach on the spots they were about to test?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html

Ok then we should also not have to take into account swirling luminol pics of some perp having cleaned with bleach, and asked to compare it to this case!

 

[otto]

And it's completely false. That comes from a study done in 1939 involving hydrochloric acid that was shown to be completely wrong in another study done in 1977 and showed the opposite was true when using hydrochloric acid.

This information was referenced in themurderofmeredithkercher wiki. It does not appear to be from 1939 or from 1977. It appears to be from the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, 2013.

Luminol Accuracy

Sensitivity
− 10‐6 to 10‐8: most sensitive presumptive test (10 to the power of 6, or 8)

Specificity
− Many false positives: bleach, metals, chemical oxidants, vegetable peroxidases
− Will not detect differences in animal or human blood

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presentations/02_BioScreening_Blood_012010_CBS_JMS.pdf page 41

Luminol –Limitations

Stability
− Very unstable
− About eight hour limit

Mostly used at crime scene
− Can dilute out stain (possibly too much for DNA analysis)
− Used more for blood spatter, crime scene reconstruction
same link; page 42

TMB Sensitivity

Sensitivity
− 1:10,000 on dried stains

Specificity
− Not as specific as KM test
− False Positive to vegetable peroxidases, bleach, otassium permanganate
− Will not detect differences in animal of human blood

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presentations/02_BioScreening_Blood_012010_CBS_JMS.pdf ;page 46

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/

 

[sherlockh]

And it's completely false. That comes from a study done in 1939 involving hydrochloric acid that was shown to be completely wrong in another study done in 1977 and showed the opposite was true when using hydrochloric acid.

I don't know what you are referring to. What is the opposite? I already find 10 times more sensitive a lot. The point is that Luminol is more sensitive and that there is a reasonable gap in sensitivity to explain the different test results. There is not even any confusion about this in court. Dr. Sarah Gino, the expert for the defense, admits that a negative TMB does not mean it is not blood, and makes further testing impossible.

Massei report

the negative result of the TMB test (tetramethylbenzidine) made it impossible to determine exactly what material had been analysed.

 

[aa9511]

There were serious problems in the NC forensic lab such that many cases, including that of Michael Peterson, were overturned due to a dishonest analyst that both lied, and manipulated results to suit the prosecution agenda. Hundreds of cases had to be reviewed as many people were convicted on the basis of faulty information. It wouldn't surprise me if people in NC are very skeptical about forensic analysis, and that it will take years before they again trust any justice system.

That makes sense that if one has witnessed that or been aware of that from living near the area or reading about it in their newspapers, then one would view case, as well as other cases, from that prism. I do understand that.

That would be the kind of people any defense would want on their jury, and obviously, no prosecution would want.

 

[MichaelSmith]

This information was referenced in themurderofmeredithkercher wiki. It does not appear to be from 1939 or from 1977. It appears to be from the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, 2013.

Luminol Accuracy

Sensitivity
− 10‐6 to 10‐8: most sensitive presumptive test (10 to the power of 6, or 8)

Specificity
− Many false positives: bleach, metals, chemical oxidants, vegetable peroxidases
− Will not detect differences in animal or human blood

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presentations/02_BioScreening_Blood_012010_CBS_JMS.pdf page 41

Luminol –Limitations

Stability
− Very unstable
− About eight hour limit

Mostly used at crime scene
− Can dilute out stain (possibly too much for DNA analysis)
− Used more for blood spatter, crime scene reconstruction
same link; page 42

TMB Sensitivity

Sensitivity
− 1:10,000 on dried stains

Specificity
− Not as specific as KM test
− False Positive to vegetable peroxidases, bleach, otassium permanganate
− Will not detect differences in animal of human blood

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presentations/02_BioScreening_Blood_012010_CBS_JMS.pdf ;page 46

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/

This

Sensitivity
− 10‐6 to 10‐8: most sensitive presumptive test (10 to the power of 6, or 8)

isn't 1:100 000 000

That number is plucked from Proescher and Moody 1939 and was shown to be completely false and applying hydrochloric acid had the opposite effect to what they claimed.

 

[aa9511]

I understand that it is probably surprising that lawyers, doctors, crime scene analysts, investigators and other professionals that deal with gruesome situations on a daily basis crack jokes about their circumstances, but that's life. Give them a few drinks if you want to really take advantage of the humor.

Yes, has no one watched those shows, what are they - CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, what else what else.....the new ones whatever they are....Blacklist....etc.etc......

 

[aa9511]

And finally, regardless of how disgusting it is to think of, could stepping on the bath mat and then the floor in Amanda's bedroom and the hallway have left those faint dilute footprints? It would be another explanation for why there are only prints from one foot.

No, I don't think it's possible at all. There would not be enough blood on there to completely cover one foot, and then last through several footsteps, and let's not forget the footsteps in Filomena's room. And what about the blood on the faucet which was "caked on" according to Amanda herself? So are you expecting a wet glob of blood on the bathmat, or would that blood have been dry at that time?

 

[aa9511]

i would suggest it means they are insensitive and don't take their job seriously...

if the victim was a family member, would you feel the same?

I don't think that's fair at all. They do this day in and day out. We cannot expect them to act like someone off the street seeing a murder victim for the first time.

After all, they are doing that as a job....is that not enough? Yet we can still call them insensitive if they joke or try to lighten the mood a bit? I mean, geez, I do not want these people who do this day in and day to go into severe depressions.

 

[aa9511]

I would add that this is the same behavior exhibited by the rogue forensic scientist from North Carolina (as described by Harmony2) above. Otto wonders why members of this forum besmirch the reputation of "respected professionals"? Steffanoni not only did the above but also directed the keystone cops collection of the bra clasp, stored the bra clasp after initial DNA testing in a manner that allowed it to rust and thus be unusable for retesting, didn't sample DNA from the people in her forensic group to see if their DNA matched the 2-4 people's DNA also found on the bra clasp ( if present it would imply contamination) and performed a suboptimal analysis (by International Standards) of the site on the knife that purportedly contained MK's DNA. She still insists that the knife unquestionably contained MK's DNA.
I can't make it more clear and I say this as a scientist with 30 years experience, Steffanoni is an embarrassment to ALL honest competent forensic scientists. She is either incredibly incompetent, dishonest or both. I can think of no other interpretation of her work

If Raffaele's DNA was flying around the cottage, then how come it was only found in one place? Wouldn't we expect it to be on some other samples too? If it is from contamination? And how could it be from contamination from the lab if nothing else had RS's DNA on it? Or was RS breaking into the lab at night and coughing and sneezing on all of the equipment?

So the only possible answer for you would be if Steffanoni or others planted RS's DNA on the bra clasp. As has been mentioned on here before, that is no small accusation to make.

And furthermore, if they were going to plant such DNA for RS, why not plant it in more places to "solidify" the case against him?? I don't understand this....they want to "nail" RS, so they plant his DNA in one little place? This all-powerful forensic team?

I am not saying you are wrong to analyze and question and be skeptical. But it has to make some kind of sense.

If they were going around planting RS's DNA (in one place), why woudln't they go ahead and plant some of Amanda's DNA in the murder room? You know, to really "nail" her?

 

[sherlockh]

Perhaps this doctor is like ALV in the Arias caes.

I don't know. Maybe he misspoke, or it was a misprint, or he meant something else. Luminol was not even used in that case.

 

[aa9511]

And it's completely false. That comes from a study done in 1939 involving hydrochloric acid that was shown to be completely wrong in another study done in 1977 and showed the opposite was true when using hydrochloric acid.

If there is so much confusion in the studies of this TMB, why do they use it at all in forensic work?

 

[otto]

This

isn't 1:100 000 000

That number is plucked from Proescher and Moody 1939 and was shown to be completely false and applying hydrochloric acid had the opposite effect to what they claimed.

Let's look at the numbers from the US Justice Department in 2013:

10-6 would be 10 to the power of negative 6, which would be: 1:1,000,000 or 0.000010

10-8 would be 10 to the power of negative 8, which would be 1:100,000,000 or 0.00000010

It is in fact 1:100,000,000

 

[otto]

If there is so much confusion in the studies of this TMB, why do they use it at all in forensic work?

TMB and Luminol have different applications. They also have different sensitivities and different limitations. Luminol is for crime scene reconstruction, it's use can dilute DNA. Therefore, it's not specifically intended for testing whether it is blood ... moreso for seeing what the culprits were doing, where they were standing, if they walked or ran from the scene. TMB is far less sensitive than luminol and it loses sensitivity by a factor of 10 after one day. It is very unstable, apparently a one week maximum. TMB tests for human haemoglobin (iron)

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presentations/02_BioScreening_Blood_012010_CBS_JMS.pdf page 48

 

[otto]

If Raffaele's DNA was flying around the cottage, then how come it was only found in one place? Wouldn't we expect it to be on some other samples too? If it is from contamination? And how could it be from contamination from the lab if nothing else had RS's DNA on it? Or was RS breaking into the lab at night and coughing and sneezing on all of the equipment?

So the only possible answer for you would be if Steffanoni or others planted RS's DNA on the bra clasp. As has been mentioned on here before, that is no small accusation to make.

And furthermore, if they were going to plant such DNA for RS, why not plant it in more places to "solidify" the case against him?? I don't understand this....they want to "nail" RS, so they plant his DNA in one little place? This all-powerful forensic team?

I am not saying you are wrong to analyze and question and be skeptical. But it has to make some kind of sense.

If they were going around planting RS's DNA (in one place), why woudln't they go ahead and plant some of Amanda's DNA in the murder room? You know, to really "nail" her?

Dr Stefanoni did not plant evidence at a crime scene, or on evidence in the lab.

 

[Harmony 2]

Thank you! So can we stop calling TMB a confirmatory test please? I am not sure why that dr is not considering Luminol, because TMB is certainly not more sensitive than Luminol. Not even close.

Our Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) Blood Test Kit is a highly sensitive presumptive test used to determine whether a suspected stain is blood or not. It is often used as a confirmatory test after a phenolphthalein blood test

http://tritechforensics.com/store/product/tetramethylbenzidine-tmb-blood-test-kit/#readmore

 

[otto]

http://tritechforensics.com/store/product/tetramethylbenzidine-tmb-blood-test-kit/#readmore

TMB is a confirmatory test for blood. If there is a blood stain, it is the best method for identifying whether it is blood. Luminol is used as a reconstruction tool, to identify the paths and activities taken by the culprits. It can dilute the sample.

Was the TMB test performed on blood that was revealed with luminol, or on original blood collected on the day of the murder? If TMB was applied to a sample that had been revealed with luminol 46 days after the murder, there's less chance that it would test positive for hemoglobin. That doesn't mean that it is not blood.

That's my understanding from what I've read.