ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito , sexism issues

Reply
Old 12th April 2017, 04:52 PM   #81
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,515
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, I did not. Master of misstatement, just to get a rise. I did not post any picture of any antenna.
You did.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Your claim 'swivelling antennae' do not exist and it is ridiculous to suggest they do is clearly your misstatement. See here.
That is a helical tuned. You are clearly flailing around in an arena you know nothing about. I have built helicals from first principles. Tricky stuff, especially when you are starting from zero. It is amusing that you had to google for something vaguely related and thought you hit pay dirt.

Here is one of my many helicals. I didn't have to reach any further than across the frakkin room. Want more? no problem. Want to pretend you know a darn thing about it? There's your problem.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20170413_005204[1].jpg (35.3 KB, 3 views)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:52 PM   #82
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
Did he sue those profile-hiding shysters, Stefanoni and Comodi?
I lay you odds-on 1/20 he did.

This is a brat having the most ginormous temper tantrum, after the courts threw out his frivolous €516K compensation claim.

It's like Jeff Dahmer demanding to be reimbursed for his cutlery after it was taken away by forensics.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:54 PM   #83
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You did.

That is a helical tuned. You are clearly flailing around in an arena you know nothing about. I have built helicals from first principles. Tricky stuff, especially when you are starting from zero. It is amusing that you had to google for something vaguely related and thought you hit pay dirt.

Here is one of my many helicals. I didn't have to reach any further than across the frakkin room. Want more? no problem. Want to pretend you know a darn thing about it? There's your problem.
Nice piece of trolling abaddon.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:01 PM   #84
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I talked of antennae swivelling, so you mischievously made up your jibe about 'phone mast'.


Written by Vixen, on 23rd January 2017 (my bolding for clarity and emphasis):

"I knew a text sent whilst a phone is switched off, simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient. The mast swivels round from side to side."


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11680843


So that seems to be an interesting contradiction, doesn't it.....?

(Not, of course, to mention the attendant technological illiteracy involved in the writing of the fundamentally - and risibly - incorrect claim that "a text sent whilst a phone is switched off simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient" )
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:04 PM   #85
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,515
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nice piece of trolling abaddon.
Have some more helicals. By so kind as to identify their frequency ranges.

It is not my fault that you have not the foggiest clue.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20170413_010614[1].jpg (41.2 KB, 1 views)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:04 PM   #86
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I can only point you to what my own research found - albeit limited.

The only Art 530, 2 acquittals I could discover were all political ones, namely Berlusconi, Andreotti and semi-civil war terrorists (Italian) who faced charges similar in nature to the UK's /IRA Guildford Four, or the Birmingham Six. Although they were proven members of a radical/revolutionary/far right group, it was not possible to prove they were the specific individual who planted the bomb/committed the terrorist act. Rather than acquit with a clean sheet, 'not guilty' 530,1, the courts qualified their acquittal by quoting Article 530,2 instead - 'insufficient evidence'.

The conclusion has to be the 'anachronistic' 530,2 is used as a get-out clause for those high up in government (favour for friends) or where the defendant/s is/are anti-establishment political agitators and the courts are reluctant to provide an unequivocal, 'not guilty'.

Bongiorno was in Berlusconi's cabinet and represented Andreotti at his trial, getting him off on Art 530 para 2, so I dare say she suggested this to Marasca during her in camera appeal over two and a half days.

In effect, she begged it to use the archaic get out of jail card used by smarmy politicians to evade justice and apply it to the kids, even though the merits courts and second instance court upheld the conviction for aggravated murder. (cf Andreotti who at least had been found 'not guilty' at the first instnace court.)


We know the acquittal was most irregular as it took everybody by surprise.

So..... no. You have zero proper evidence that of the total number of Italian citizens acquitted in a criminal trial process over, say, a recent 10-year period, the "vast majority" were acquitted under 530.1.

So you'll be withdrawing your claim, right?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:21 PM   #87
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,833
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You got it! <sfx "chicken in a backpack" scouse accent warm up> your learning, you're learning.
See, we can get along!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:22 PM   #88
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,515
gosh, vixen, tell me what this one is for?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20170413_012156[1].jpg (44.8 KB, 3 views)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:23 PM   #89
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Written by Vixen, on 23rd January 2017 (my bolding for clarity and emphasis):

"I knew a text sent whilst a phone is switched off, simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient. The mast swivels round from side to side."


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11680843


So that seems to be an interesting contradiction, doesn't it.....?

(Not, of course, to mention the attendant technological illiteracy involved in the writing of the fundamentally - and risibly - incorrect claim that "a text sent whilst a phone is switched off simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient" )
Now, now, LondonJohn. You know what she meant. It's easy to write "mast" when you really meant "antennae" as they're so similar.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:31 PM   #90
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I can only point you to what my own research found - albeit limited.

The only Art 530, 2 acquittals I could discover were all political ones, namely Berlusconi, Andreotti and semi-civil war terrorists (Italian) who faced charges similar in nature to the UK's /IRA Guildford Four, or the Birmingham Six. Although they were proven members of a radical/revolutionary/far right group, it was not possible to prove they were the specific individual who planted the bomb/committed the terrorist act. Rather than acquit with a clean sheet, 'not guilty' 530,1, the courts qualified their acquittal by quoting Article 530,2 instead - 'insufficient evidence'.

The conclusion has to be the 'anachronistic' 530,2 is used as a get-out clause for those high up in government (favour for friends) or where the defendant/s is/are anti-establishment political agitators and the courts are reluctant to provide an unequivocal, 'not guilty'.

Bongiorno was in Berlusconi's cabinet and represented Andreotti at his trial, getting him off on Art 530 para 2, so I dare say she suggested this to Marasca during her in camera appeal over two and a half days.

In effect, she begged it to use the archaic get out of jail card used by smarmy politicians to evade justice and apply it to the kids, even though the merits courts and second instance court upheld the conviction for aggravated murder. (cf Andreotti who at least had been found 'not guilty' at the first instnace court.)


We know the acquittal was most irregular as it took everybody by surprise.
Pure conjecture yet again. Not a shred of evidence to support any of this.

I think you missed these, so I'll repost them here:

Please answer these questions:

1)Exactly how did Knox and Sollecito remove all traces of their DNA, fingerprints, and their bloody shoe/foot prints from Kercher's bedroom leaving only those of Guede?

2) Why would they leave the bath mat with its bloody footprint if it were Sollecito's?

3) Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

Please don't tell me you've answered these before as you have not.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 12th April 2017 at 06:12 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:37 PM   #91
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
Did he sue those profile-hiding shysters, Stefanoni and Comodi?
I don't know the names of the persons actually claimed as contributing to the tort in the civil suit. Stefanoni, as far as I know, did not have the judicial status of "magistrate" (which includes magistrates, prosecutors, and judges), but had police status, and therefore may not be covered by Law no. 18 of 2015 or the earlier version, Law no. 117 of 1988. Comodi, a prosecutor, certainly would be. Police may be directly individually civilly liable for misconduct under other statutes.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:46 PM   #92
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,859
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
gosh, vixen, tell me what this one is for?
I'm going to help Vixen out. Here is a cell tower Vixen and not just any cell tower but the Wind tower the 10:13 call to Meredith's phone.

I wrote a blog 4 years ago about this.



The blog is at https://perugia-injustice.blogspot.com
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:56 PM   #93
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
Did he sue those profile-hiding shysters, Stefanoni and Comodi?
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I don't know the names of the persons actually claimed as contributing to the tort in the civil suit. Stefanoni, as far as I know, did not have the judicial status of "magistrate" (which includes magistrates, prosecutors, and judges), but had police status, and therefore may not be covered by Law no. 18 of 2015 or the earlier version, Law no. 117 of 1988. Comodi, a prosecutor, certainly would be. Police may be directly individually civilly liable for misconduct under other statutes.
This information may be of relevance regarding incidents of police misconduct in Italy, not including suppression of lab data, circa 2000:

".... According to reports published during the year 2001 by Amnesty International, there were numerous allegations of the deliberate use of excessive force against individuals detained in connection with common criminal offenses or in the course of identity checks. According to allegations, mistreatment, when it occurs, usually occurs at the time of arrest and during the first 24 hours in custody and affects both citizens and foreigners. A large number of alleged victims were women. A high proportion of the allegations received by Amnesty International concern foreign nationals (many of them from Africa), as well as Roma. ...."

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rw...ope/italy.html
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 05:57 PM   #94
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm going to help Vixen out. Here is a cell tower Vixen and not just any cell tower but the Wind tower the 10:13 call to Meredith's phone.

I wrote a blog 4 years ago about this.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0HiMeoI3x...Wind+30064.jpg

The blog is at https://perugia-injustice.blogspot.com
Oh, darn. I was hoping we could see a video with the mast swiveling from side to side.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 07:04 PM   #95
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by toto View Post
from The Times:
Mr Sollecito is also seeking to sue 12 jurors who ruled on the murder case in Perugia and, on appeal, in Florence. Jurors can be sued only if their conduct is deemed to be gravely unfair or malicious and a judge in Genoa will rule today on whether the jurors can be included in Mr Sollecito’s suit.
To be honest this seems rather a Hail Mary Pass.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I agree, notwithstanding what Stacyhs said, that in essence, Marasca/Bruno said that the initial investigation was so bungled, that it would be impossible to either convict or totally acquit based on it.
This legal step is not unusual, as it is provided for in a law that was passed in 1988 and reformulated in 2015. It is important that it is the State - the Italian Republic - that is the defendant in the civil suit (for 3 million euro). The various relevant magistrates (magistrates, prosecutors, and police) are named as contributing to the wrongful behavior, and are held financially responsible by the State for part of the damages if the plaintiff (Sollecito) wins a definitive verdict.

Whether or not the suit will be successful in the Italian court system is another matter. However, it is necessary, according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law, to follow this legal path to its conclusion in order to file a complaint with the ECHR of a violation of rights for an unfair civil trial, if Sollecito loses and believes his rights to civil redress were violated.

The point of the suit, beyond compensation, is that it is a mechanism for achieving an official recognition of violations of Italian law and EU (and European Convention) law in Sollecito's trials that were not considered in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. Being a plaintiff in a civil suit, Sollecito should be in a position to obtain a review of these violations. Should the Italian judicial system finally and definitively refuse to conduct this review in the civil trial, the ECHR would be the next step obtain recognition of the violations.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th April 2017 at 07:21 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 08:33 PM   #96
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The courts do not agree with you. Marasca is quoted here:




Whom should we believe, you or Marasca, the presiding judge at the Supreme Court hearing?

So does "no evidence" equate to sufficient or insufficient evidence? My guess is he chose his words carefully to avoid a sledgehammer to Nencini's reputation.

Another clue comes from Marasca's explanation for annulling without remand. He didn't rule the court was "near certainty they committed the crime", as you suggest. He steps through each facet of evidence and explains why the evidence is completely useless. Biological traces; nope. Computers; nope. Court testimonies; nope. Guede; nope.

But seriously, the case is closed and Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted. As I said before, if arguing whether they qualify to be considered "exonerated" or whether the Supreme Court thought there might be some evidence of guilt somehow makes you feel better then you need to hold onto that. From my perspective justice has been served in all respects with the lone exception of the calunia charge, but I'm pretty much expecting the ECHR to rectify that one.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 03:36 AM   #97
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As Grinder pointed out, that is just a court template sentence, probably left in by accident as Art 530, 2 does not say that.
But it's written in a legal document by a judge, so surely this is a judicial fact and cannot be undone?

So they left a ruling in a legal document by accident?

Is this llke naming someone as having left DNA is a typo?

Not very careful these judges are they?

Next you will be telling us that some judges ignore scientific facts and make their own conclusions out of thin air.
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 03:46 AM   #98
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 309
A picture paints a thousand words

Seeing as none of these arguments seem to get settled and I'm bored, I thought I'd just throw some of these out there.


Bleach receipt



Window without bars.



Huge boulder



Mop and bucket Amanda was carrying when caught by surprise by the police before they had made the phone call.

Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 07:11 AM   #99
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,833
Scene outside Knox's Seattle home after noise ticket:



Pic showing how deck is a lousy entry point for a burglar as it is exposed to the road and lit by a (albeit distant) street lamp:



Patrizia Stefanoni's contaminated glove handling the bra-clasp, and then the 2013 Supreme Court said the route of contamination was unproven:



Mignini at a Satanism and The Law conference, where he's plucked from the audience as a respected expert on the subject:



The unbiased interrogation, which they said was not suspect centric:



The amorphous hallway blob, which Vixen says is a foottrack. Note how luminol shines on the ruler, too, as well as on the tech's boots! Yup, these Scientific Police were consummate professionals!



Finally, the picture which nutty guilters say proves beyond a doubt the kids' guilt:

__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 13th April 2017 at 07:18 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 09:30 AM   #100
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
This legal step is not unusual, as it is provided for in a law that was passed in 1988 and reformulated in 2015. It is important that it is the State - the Italian Republic - that is the defendant in the civil suit (for 3 million euro). The various relevant magistrates (magistrates, prosecutors, and police judges) are named as contributing to the wrongful behavior, and are held financially responsible by the State for part of the damages if the plaintiff (Sollecito) wins a definitive verdict.

Whether or not the suit will be successful in the Italian court system is another matter. However, it is necessary, according to the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR case-law, to follow this legal path to its conclusion in order to file a complaint with the ECHR of a violation of rights for an unfair civil trial, if Sollecito loses and believes his rights to civil redress were violated.

The point of the suit, beyond compensation, is that it is a mechanism for achieving an official recognition of violations of Italian law and EU (and European Convention) law in Sollecito's trials that were not considered in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report. Being a plaintiff in a civil suit, Sollecito should be in a position to obtain a review of these violations. Should the Italian judicial system finally and definitively refuse to conduct this review in the civil trial, the ECHR would be the next step obtain recognition of the violations.
I corrected the above for my error; the police are not magistrates, but the judges are.

The misconduct of the police (such as mistreatment during the interrogation and, with the aid or complicity of the prosecutors and judges, suppressing exculpatory evidence) would potentially be reviewed under the review of the conduct of the magistrates, including the prosecutors and judges.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 10:41 AM   #101
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Scene outside Knox's Seattle home after noise ticket:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...41aabb5645.jpg

Pic showing how deck is a lousy entry point for a burglar as it is exposed to the road and lit by a (albeit distant) street lamp:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8486ea2b66.jpg

Patrizia Stefanoni's contaminated glove handling the bra-clasp, and then the 2013 Supreme Court said the route of contamination was unproven:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d64bdf2e8d.jpg

Mignini at a Satanism and The Law conference, where he's plucked from the audience as a respected expert on the subject:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...af3cd3ec23.jpg

The unbiased interrogation, which they said was not suspect centric:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ebbf46f40d.jpg

The amorphous hallway blob, which Vixen says is a foottrack. Note how luminol shines on the ruler, too, as well as on the tech's boots! Yup, these Scientific Police were consummate professionals!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...b74fa8742d.jpg

Finally, the picture which nutty guilters say proves beyond a doubt the kids' guilt:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...a48818b1f1.jpg
As our almost lone PGP representative here, I would love to hear Vixen's explanation for why the tech's shoe cover and ruler are glowing from the luminol.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 13th April 2017 at 10:48 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 11:06 AM   #102
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Scene outside Knox's Seattle home after noise ticket:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...41aabb5645.jpg

Pic showing how deck is a lousy entry point for a burglar as it is exposed to the road and lit by a (albeit distant) street lamp:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8486ea2b66.jpg

Patrizia Stefanoni's contaminated glove handling the bra-clasp, and then the 2013 Supreme Court said the route of contamination was unproven:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d64bdf2e8d.jpg

Mignini at a Satanism and The Law conference, where he's plucked from the audience as a respected expert on the subject:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...af3cd3ec23.jpg

The unbiased interrogation, which they said was not suspect centric:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ebbf46f40d.jpg

The amorphous hallway blob, which Vixen says is a foottrack. Note how luminol shines on the ruler, too, as well as on the tech's boots! Yup, these Scientific Police were consummate professionals!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...b74fa8742d.jpg

Finally, the picture which nutty guilters say proves beyond a doubt the kids' guilt:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...a48818b1f1.jpg
Let's not forget these:

The "bloody bathroom" in which Knox showered.


And the Harry Potter book that the police claimed they found in her bedroom thus "proving" she had lied about reading the German edition at Raff's apartment on Nov 1. Trouble is, the German edition was by his bed.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 11:43 AM   #103
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As our almost lone PGP representative here, I would love to hear Vixen's explanation for why the tech's shoe cover and ruler are glowing from the luminol.

What materials glow under a black light (ultra violet)? See here.


Re the luminol highlighted footprints:

Quote:
On December 18, 2007 Deputy Commissioner Maurizio Arnone and video technician Claudio Ippolito went to the cottage to document with video the spraying of luminol on certain areas and photograph any traces of blood that the luminol might reveal.[1] The areas that were to be covered included the kitchen-living room, the bedrooms of Amanda Knox and Filomena Romanelli, and the large bathroom.[2] They reported seven footprints in the corridor between Meredith's bedroom where she was murdered and Amanda Knox's bedroom. No similar footprints were discovered anywhere else in the cottage. [3] The three footprints in Knox's room yielded Knox's genetic profile and one of the footprints in the hallway contained both Amanda and Meredith's DNA.[4]
footnotes:

Quote:
[1] Massei report translation, p.344
[2] Massei report translation, p.344
[3] Massei report translation, pp.344-349
[4] Exhibit 183 - Massei report translation, p.194,Massei report translation, p.380, and Hellmann report translation, p.69
So, what are the finding regarding Footprint #183 (see [4], above]?

Quote:
Mixed DNA (Finding 6 / L8 / Rep. 183)

The discovery of Amanda Knox's DNA mixed with the victims DNA in a footprint with no useful characteristics that is presumed to have been made in blood is difficult to explain.[16] Despite claims to the contrary there is no usable DNA in dust.[17] The defense maintains that there is no way to date when the DNA was deposited which is true but any argument based on this requires that we assume Amanda Knox was walking around making footprints in her own blood prior to the murder. If something like that happened you would expect a reference to a specific event which could then be verified or denied by the other two roommates. This line of argument would also run into problems in explaining why a foot compatible with Raffaele's foot was also making imprints in blood.

Footnotes;
Quote:
[16] Dr. Stefanoni's Technical Assessment of Biologicals Page 136
[17] Toothman, M et al."Characterization of human DNA in environmental samples" Forensic Science International Vol 178(1) p7-15
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces


Think about it. The luminol yielded a footprint compatible with Amanda. Within that footprint, DNA was extracted, confirming Amanda and Mez' DNA profile. Where does the DNA come from? Mixed blood for sure, as only white blood cells are rich in DNA and are contained within a material (haemoglobin - blood) which causes luminol to glow.

Perspiration contains negligible amounts of iron, and exfoliated skin cells are dead and thus, contain no DNA. The mixed DNA in the sink is as a result of either Amanda's own blood OR her rubbing her hands vigorously to cause skin cells rich in DNA to be deposited,

We see in Amanda's own email to the world of how thoroughly Raff scrubbed her in the shower, including cotton buds for her ears, and brushing her hair.

I suspect this shower took place in the small bathroom after the murder.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg luminol with dna.jpg (26.3 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpeg luminol.jpeg (52.1 KB, 2 views)
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:02 PM   #104
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What materials glow under a black light (ultra violet)?

Oh dear. Yet more ignorance of scientific matters.....

Luminol reactions (and the capturing of them photographically) have precisely NOTHING to do with the use of so-called "black light". They are in fact two completely different and separate processes and techniques.

A Luminol test works because a positive reaction to the Luminol causes the emission of VISIBLE light. It can be seen by the naked eye in an otherwise dark environment. That's precisely why rooms are typically totally blacked out by (competent) crime scene investigators before Luminol is applied. And the glowing reaction (in the visible light area of the spectrum, remember - not the UV area of the spectrum) is then recorded by means of ordinary photography. Again, "black light" is not employed at any point in the process, and it's entirely irrelevant to any discussion about Luminol testing (as anyone even faintly conversant with general scientific principles in this area would easily know......).

So, having dismissed all irrelevant nonsense about "black light", the question remains: what was it that caused things such as the measurement ruler and the boot of the "CSI" to show glowing spots in the (visible light) photographs? Part of the answer can probably be found in the fact that the exposure data for those photographs show significantly longer exposures than are recommended when photographing Luminol reactions. And (again, as anyone who knows anything about this area would easily know) this significant increase in exposure time means that even the most faint light emissions would show up on the photograph as relatively much brighter. And in turn, this points to the probability that the amorphous blobs of Luminol reaction shown on the floor area in those photographs were almost certainly only the very faintest of Luminol reactions, which were artificially made to look brighter by way of a non-standard longer exposure.

Interesting, huh? Maybe "black light" could illuminate things further
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:15 PM   #105
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh dear. Yet more ignorance of scientific matters.....

Luminol reactions (and the capturing of them photographically) have precisely NOTHING to do with the use of so-called "black light". They are in fact two completely different and separate processes and techniques.

A Luminol test works because a positive reaction to the Luminol causes the emission of VISIBLE light. It can be seen by the naked eye in an otherwise dark environment. That's precisely why rooms are typically totally blacked out by (competent) crime scene investigators before Luminol is applied. And the glowing reaction (in the visible light area of the spectrum, remember - not the UV area of the spectrum) is then recorded by means of ordinary photography. Again, "black light" is not employed at any point in the process, and it's entirely irrelevant to any discussion about Luminol testing (as anyone even faintly conversant with general scientific principles in this area would easily know......).

So, having dismissed all irrelevant nonsense about "black light", the question remains: what was it that caused things such as the measurement ruler and the boot of the "CSI" to show glowing spots in the (visible light) photographs? Part of the answer can probably be found in the fact that the exposure data for those photographs show significantly longer exposures than are recommended when photographing Luminol reactions. And (again, as anyone who knows anything about this area would easily know) this significant increase in exposure time means that even the most faint light emissions would show up on the photograph as relatively much brighter. And in turn, this points to the probability that the amorphous blobs of Luminol reaction shown on the floor area in those photographs were almost certainly only the very faintest of Luminol reactions, which were artificially made to look brighter by way of a non-standard longer exposure.

Interesting, huh? Maybe "black light" could illuminate things further

The film used in luminescence photography - capturing the flourescent flash when the luminol is catalysed - is based on ultra-violet photography.

As anyone who has used ultra-violet photography knows. - Or by the use of ultra violet filters - the effect is the same.

Here is a webpage that explains the applications of ultra-violet (black light) photography and luminol. http://medicalphotography.com.au/Article_02/02g.html
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä

Last edited by Vixen; 13th April 2017 at 12:29 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:22 PM   #106
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh dear. Yet more ignorance of scientific matters.....

Luminol reactions (and the capturing of them photographically) have precisely NOTHING to do with the use of so-called "black light". They are in fact two completely different and separate processes and techniques.

A Luminol test works because a positive reaction to the Luminol causes the emission of VISIBLE light. It can be seen by the naked eye in an otherwise dark environment. That's precisely why rooms are typically totally blacked out by (competent) crime scene investigators before Luminol is applied. And the glowing reaction (in the visible light area of the spectrum, remember - not the UV area of the spectrum) is then recorded by means of ordinary photography. Again, "black light" is not employed at any point in the process, and it's entirely irrelevant to any discussion about Luminol testing (as anyone even faintly conversant with general scientific principles in this area would easily know......).

So, having dismissed all irrelevant nonsense about "black light", the question remains: what was it that caused things such as the measurement ruler and the boot of the "CSI" to show glowing spots in the (visible light) photographs? Part of the answer can probably be found in the fact that the exposure data for those photographs show significantly longer exposures than are recommended when photographing Luminol reactions. And (again, as anyone who knows anything about this area would easily know) this significant increase in exposure time means that even the most faint light emissions would show up on the photograph as relatively much brighter. And in turn, this points to the probability that the amorphous blobs of Luminol reaction shown on the floor area in those photographs were almost certainly only the very faintest of Luminol reactions, which were artificially made to look brighter by way of a non-standard longer exposure.

Interesting, huh? Maybe "black light" could illuminate things further
If you don't mind, LJ, I'd like to add a couple more "Oh Dear's" to your post.

Vixen, I notice you continue to ignore exhibit 178-180, the traces found in Amanda's room. These traces, as you should recall, tested negative with TMB and also did not contain Meredith's DNA, but they DID contain Amanda's. So now, let's go back and look at what you had to say when selectively considering only one of the traces;

Quote:
Think about it. The luminol yielded a footprint compatible with Amanda (TC: and probably Laura, Filomena and Meredith, but I digress). Within that footprint, DNA was extracted, confirming Amanda and Mez' DNA profile. Where does the DNA come from? Mixed blood for sure, as only white blood cells are rich in DNA and are contained within a material (haemoglobin - blood) which causes luminol to glow.
So now what? There were no wounds on Amanda and the TMB test proves it's not blood anyway. So now what do you think is causing the Luminol reaction?

As for the third "oh dear", here is your thoroughly shortsighted analysis of the DNA collected at the sink;

Quote:
Perspiration contains negligible amounts of iron, and exfoliated skin cells are dead and thus, contain no DNA. The mixed DNA in the sink is as a result of either Amanda's own blood OR her rubbing her hands vigorously to cause skin cells rich in DNA to be deposited,
You seem to have forgotten one of the most common activities we perform in our bathroom sink - we spit! And where might we find a high concentration of DNA? That's right sports fans, it's in our saliva. This is what happens, Vixen, when you allow your confirmation bias to rule over critical thought.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:35 PM   #107
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
If you don't mind, LJ, I'd like to add a couple more "Oh Dear's" to your post.

Vixen, I notice you continue to ignore exhibit 178-180, the traces found in Amanda's room. These traces, as you should recall, tested negative with TMB and also did not contain Meredith's DNA, but they DID contain Amanda's. So now, let's go back and look at what you had to say when selectively considering only one of the traces;



So now what? There were no wounds on Amanda and the TMB test proves it's not blood anyway. So now what do you think is causing the Luminol reaction?

As for the third "oh dear", here is your thoroughly shortsighted analysis of the DNA collected at the sink;



You seem to have forgotten one of the most common activities we perform in our bathroom sink - we spit! And where might we find a high concentration of DNA? That's right sports fans, it's in our saliva. This is what happens, Vixen, when you allow your confirmation bias to rule over critical thought.

You are quite wrong. I shouldn't rely on anything LoJo says.

http://medicalphotography.com.au/Article_02/02g5.html


Sure ultraviolet (black light) photography will highlight other objects with a propensity to efflourescence, however, these would not be items highlighted by luminol. Or if they are, then each case needs to be assessed on its merits.

If a footprint is highlighted by luminol - and as captured on black light photography - and DNA is extracted from the material causing it and it is compatible with the footprint / DNA of the suspect and the victim who has shed copious blood nearby, then it is a reasonable conclusion to come to that the suspect walked in the victim's blood.

TMB, nice to have the extra confirmation it's blood but it detracts little if it is not applicable or gives a negative. False negatives occur 50% of the time.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä

Last edited by Vixen; 13th April 2017 at 12:39 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:39 PM   #108
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The film used in luminescence photography - capturing the flourescent flash when the luminol is catalysed - is based on ultra-violet photography.

As anyone who has used ultra-violet photography knows. - Or by the use of ultra violet filters - the effect is the same.

Here is a webpage that explains the applications of ultra-violet (black light) photography and luminol. http://medicalphotography.com.au/Article_02/02g.html
Wow, the BS-oh-meter is going crazy!!

First off, you attempted to explain the luminescence on the ruler and the booties because of the use of a black light. Your BS was caught and now you're trying to move the goalposts. No black light is used when filming Luminol and thus, anything that is glowing is doing so due to chemical reaction with Luminol.

More BS on your part.. no special film is used when filming Luminol. Standard film with long exposure is all that is needed. In fact, standard digital cameras are now the cameras of choice to use for filming Luminol results. No filters are required.

The link you provided only talks to luminescence, discussing various things that will react to ultraviolet light. However, as noted in the article, Luminol produces a chemiluminescence - that is, no ultraviolet light is required to generate the luminescence.

Wanna try again?
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:49 PM   #109
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are quite wrong. I shouldn't rely on anything LoJo says.

http://medicalphotography.com.au/Article_02/02g5.html


Sure ultraviolet (black light) photography will highlight other objects with a propensity to efflourescence, however, these would not be items highlighted by luminol. Or if they are, then each case needs to be assessed on its merits.

If a footprint is highlighted by luminol - and as captured on black light photography - and DNA is extracted from the material causing it and it is compatible with the footprint / DNA of the suspect and the victim who has shed copious blood nearby, then it is a reasonable conclusion to come to that the suspect walked in the victim's blood.

TMB, nice to have the extra confirmation it's blood but it detracts little if it is not applicable or gives a negative. False negatives occur 50% of the time.
Nope, you are completely misinterpreting the article you are linking to. Luminol is a form of chemiluminescence - just google the word and the example you'll get is Luminol. It means to generate a luminescence through chemical reaction. The only possible cause for the luminescence on the ruler and booties is because something on them reacted to the Luminol.

You might also want to try googling photography of Luminol results. Standard film or digital cameras. No black lights, no special film, no filters.

You once again (must be at least 100+ times now) completely sidestep the issue of the three traces in Amanda's room.

And no, you also misinterpreted the court testimony on this. What was said was 50% of the time a Luminol positive trace will test negative with TMB. This is testament to how prone to false positives Luminol is. I dare you to find ONE citation that suggests TMB has any propensity for false positives. There are conditions where it can happen, but it's pretty rare. It's also why none other than Stefanoni herself testified a false TMB test is definitive for no blood.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 12:50 PM   #110
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Wow, the BS-oh-meter is going crazy!!

First off, you attempted to explain the luminescence on the ruler and the booties because of the use of a black light. Your BS was caught and now you're trying to move the goalposts. No black light is used when filming Luminol and thus, anything that is glowing is doing so due to chemical reaction with Luminol.

More BS on your part.. no special film is used when filming Luminol. Standard film with long exposure is all that is needed. In fact, standard digital cameras are now the cameras of choice to use for filming Luminol results. No filters are required.

The link you provided only talks to luminescence, discussing various things that will react to ultraviolet light. However, as noted in the article, Luminol produces a chemiluminescence - that is, no ultraviolet light is required to generate the luminescence.

Wanna try again?

An item with a propensity to effloruescence will equally be caught in an ultra -violet light, as it will on ultra-violet photography.

Luminol causes a reaction when catalysed with an oxide of causing a luminescent flash in objects which contain ferric material (iron), which can be caught by ultraviolet photography. To capture this flourescence at its maximum, forensic photographers will take the luminescence photographs in the dark, by use of ultraviolet photography. Items which do not react with luminol may also show up, if they contain the type of shorter wave length than the ultraviolet. This is what causes the glow. = Both the luminol reaction AND items that efflouresce.

As a photographer myself in the past I can confirm you can use ultraviolet filters in daylight, or ultraviolet film (as used by forensic police with luminol photography).


Remember: black light is just a colloquialism for ultraviolet light.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä

Last edited by Vixen; 13th April 2017 at 12:55 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 01:08 PM   #111
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
An item with a propensity to effloruescence will equally be caught in an ultra -violet light, as it will on ultra-violet photography.

Luminol causes a reaction when catalysed with an oxide of causing a luminescent flash in objects which contain ferric material (iron), which can be caught by ultraviolet photography. To capture this flourescence at its maximum, forensic photographers will take the luminescence photographs in the dark, by use of ultraviolet photography. Items which do not react with luminol may also show up, if they contain the type of shorter wave length than the ultraviolet. This is what causes the glow. = Both the luminol reaction AND items that efflouresce.

As a photographer myself in the past I can confirm you can use ultraviolet filters in daylight, or ultraviolet film (as used by forensic police with luminol photography).


Remember: black light is just a colloquialism for ultraviolet light.
I am also a photographer but that has no bearing on how Luminol is filmed nor does it make either of us an expert on filming Luminol.

I suggest you go read here; http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/pdf...ordby_book.pdf

ETA: or go here and search on "Photographing Luminol"; http://www.crime-scene-investigator....ime-scene.html

I can, of course, provide numerous other links on the subject of filming a Luminol reaction which will prove no special film, filters or lighting is required. I'll await with bated breath you providing one link that says otherwise.

Last edited by TruthCalls; 13th April 2017 at 02:07 PM.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 01:14 PM   #112
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Vixen. You. Could. Not. Be. More. Wrong.

(As usual).

Luminol emits light in the visible part of the spectrum with a positive reaction. The Luminol reaction is recorded by crime scene operatives with a STANDARD CAMERA capturing visible light. Not a UV camera. Not a "Black light" camera. A regular camera (digital cameras are standard these days for obvious reasons, but old-fashioned film cameras would work just as well).

As TruthCalls told you as well, it's particularly amusing to see you dig out (google, perchance....?) a totally irrelevant "reference" in an attempt to bolster your (incorrect) "argument". Great stuff, as usual!

Perhaps you could email Stefanoni (or, failing that, a competent crime scene examiner...) and ask directly whether Luminol tests are examined and recorded under UV light or just in dark conditions using a standard camera capturing visible light. Nothing I or TruthCalls is telling you is appearing to have any impact, after all
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 01:16 PM   #113
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
"When luminol is sprayed evenly across an area, trace amounts of an activating oxidant make the luminol emit a blue glow that can be seen in a darkened room. The glow only lasts about 30 seconds, but investigators can document the effect with a long-exposure photograph. Crime scene investigators must apply it evenly to avoid misleading results, as blood traces appear more concentrated in areas that receive more spray. The intensity of the glow does not indicate the amount of blood or other activator present, but only shows the distribution of trace amounts in the area. ....

To exhibit its luminescence, the luminol must be activated with an oxidant. ....

Luminol reacts with the hydroxide ion, forming a dianion. The oxygen produced from the hydrogen peroxide then reacts with the luminol dianion. The product of this reaction—an unstable organic peroxide—is made by the loss of a nitrogen molecule, the change of electrons from excited state to ground state, and the emission of energy as a photon. This emission produces the blue glow*. ...."

*This production of light from a chemical reaction is called chemiluminescence. No ultraviolet light is required or used for the production of light in this type of system. The blue glow is visible and captured using visible-light photography (film or digital) with long exposure.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol#Chemiluminescence

Last edited by Numbers; 13th April 2017 at 01:17 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 01:20 PM   #114
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
"When luminol is sprayed evenly across an area, trace amounts of an activating oxidant make the luminol emit a blue glow that can be seen in a darkened room. The glow only lasts about 30 seconds, but investigators can document the effect with a long-exposure photograph. Crime scene investigators must apply it evenly to avoid misleading results, as blood traces appear more concentrated in areas that receive more spray. The intensity of the glow does not indicate the amount of blood or other activator present, but only shows the distribution of trace amounts in the area. ....

To exhibit its luminescence, the luminol must be activated with an oxidant. ....

Luminol reacts with the hydroxide ion, forming a dianion. The oxygen produced from the hydrogen peroxide then reacts with the luminol dianion. The product of this reaction—an unstable organic peroxide—is made by the loss of a nitrogen molecule, the change of electrons from excited state to ground state, and the emission of energy as a photon. This emission produces the blue glow*. ...."

*This production of light from a chemical reaction is called chemiluminescence. No ultraviolet light is required or used for the production of light in this type of system. The blue glow is visible and captured using visible-light photography (film or digital) with long exposure.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol#Chemiluminescence

Ah, well..... you know this; I know this; TruthCalls knows this; every CSI in the entire world who's ever used Luminol knows this; the company that makes, markets and sells Luminol knows this.

Wouldn't it be strange if everyone in that entire list above was wrong....?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 01:39 PM   #115
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,833
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If a footprint is highlighted by luminol - and as captured on black light photography - and DNA is extracted from the material causing it and it is compatible with the footprint / DNA of the suspect and the victim who has shed copious blood nearby, then it is a reasonable conclusion to come to that the suspect walked in the victim's blood.
That's not a reasonable conclusion at all. Put aside the silliness about the way luminol is photographed.....

.... if that had been a one-ff foottrack of one of the accused, there is no other sign - visible or invisible - that Knox had walked in blood anywhere else in the cottage, much less the murderroom.

If someone were to reach the conclusion you claim, that would simply raise far more questions.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 01:48 PM   #116
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,139
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
An item with a propensity to effloruescence will equally be caught in an ultra -violet light, as it will on ultra-violet photography.

Luminol causes a reaction when catalysed with an oxide of causing a luminescent flash in objects which contain ferric material (iron), which can be caught by ultraviolet photography. To capture this flourescence at its maximum, forensic photographers will take the luminescence photographs in the dark, by use of ultraviolet photography. Items which do not react with luminol may also show up, if they contain the type of shorter wave length than the ultraviolet. This is what causes the glow. = Both the luminol reaction AND items that efflouresce.

As a photographer myself in the past I can confirm you can use ultraviolet filters in daylight, or ultraviolet film (as used by forensic police with luminol photography).

Remember: black light is just a colloquialism for ultraviolet light.

Vixen I have advised you before not to use big words you do not understand the meaning of. Efflorescence is the the migration of salts to the surface of a rock or other porous solid. Do you understand what a filter does? The UV filter blocks the UV light it does the exact opposite of UV photography. The light emitted by Luminol in response to haemoglobin is 428nm visible blue light not UV. If you imaged in the UV you would fail to detect the signal you are looking for.

The bigger problem with imaging in the UV spectrum is glass absorbs UV so you cannot use glass lenses.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 02:02 PM   #117
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
That's not a reasonable conclusion at all. Put aside the silliness about the way luminol is photographed.....

.... if that had been a one-ff foottrack of one of the accused, there is no other sign - visible or invisible - that Knox had walked in blood anywhere else in the cottage, much less the murderroom.

If someone were to reach the conclusion you claim, that would simply raise far more questions.
This is precisely why Vixen is trying to avoid samples 178-180, because they are TMB negative as well as negative for Meredith's DNA. Ergo they are NOT made from Meredith's blood. Ergo, something else is going on here to cause the Luminol to react. But that doesn't work well when you want to argue the Luminol traces are reacting to Meredith's blood.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 02:39 PM   #118
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Vixen I have advised you before not to use big words you do not understand the meaning of. Efflorescence is the the migration of salts to the surface of a rock or other porous solid. Do you understand what a filter does? The UV filter blocks the UV light it does the exact opposite of UV photography. The light emitted by Luminol in response to haemoglobin is 428nm visible blue light not UV. If you imaged in the UV you would fail to detect the signal you are looking for.

The bigger problem with imaging in the UV spectrum is glass absorbs UV so you cannot use glass lenses.
I did not say UV filter - that is to block out the blue in the atmosphere that makes a photo less clear.

I did not say the flourescence was ultra-violet, I said the luminesence was captured by ultra-violet photography.

Please have the courtesy to quote me properly instead of going out of your way to take the piss, under the masquerade of being an expert.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä

Last edited by Vixen; 13th April 2017 at 02:41 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 02:47 PM   #119
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,882
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This is precisely why Vixen is trying to avoid samples 178-180, because they are TMB negative as well as negative for Meredith's DNA. Ergo they are NOT made from Meredith's blood. Ergo, something else is going on here to cause the Luminol to react. But that doesn't work well when you want to argue the Luminol traces are reacting to Meredith's blood.
No, I think we established that Gino was going off half-cocked when she claimed Stefanoni wrote 'negative' on the SAL, when in fact, AIUI she didn't test it for TMB at all, preferring to test the small quantity of organic material for DNA, almost certainly from white blood cells, as it was BARD the substance illuminated by luminol was the victim's blood.

As a forensic scientist working for the police, her main aim was to identify who was there at the crime scene, and the DNA of the footprint highlighted by luminol was identified as a mixture of Amanda/Mez DNA.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä

Last edited by Vixen; 13th April 2017 at 02:50 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 02:56 PM   #120
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ah, well..... you know this; I know this; TruthCalls knows this; every CSI in the entire world who's ever used Luminol knows this; the company that makes, markets and sells Luminol knows this.

Wouldn't it be strange if everyone in that entire list above was wrong....?
Every CSI in the entire world who's ever used luminol, the company that makes, markets, and sells luminol, and the links describing luminol photography are clearly either Mafia, Illuminati, Masons, have been bought off by the massive Knox PR machine, or pressured by the US government. It's just common sense.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.