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 13th April 2017, 03:03 PM   #121
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
Holy Moly. No, it was not "established" at all. In fact, it was shown to be quite the opposite.
I asked you this once before, but you failed to answer it (along with several other questions):

If Stefanoni had, in fact, not tested those samples with TMB, why did the prosecution fail to point this out? Why was Stefanoni not called to the stand to testify that there were no TMB negative tests? These negative tests were crucial to the prosecution's claim that the footprints were in blood yet you want us all to believe that the prosecution simply let this "false" information go unchallenged? Riiiiiiiight.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 13th April 2017 at 03:43 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 13th April 2017, 03:13 PM   #122
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I did not say UV filter - that is to block out the blue in the atmosphere that makes a photo less clear.

No. That is NOT what it is for at all.

The role of a UV filter is to block out ultra-violet light. "The blue in the atmosphere" (whatever THAT means....) is visible (blue) light. Ultra-violet light is not in the visible part of the spectrum. The clue, you see, lies in the very word "ultra-violet": it means "above the violet (frequency)". Violet is at the upper end of the visible part of the spectrum (ROYGBIV); ultra-violet is thus above and outside the visible part of the spectrum.

So the role of a UV filter has nothing whatsoever to do with "blocking out....blue" (or, for that matter, blocking out any other visible colour of light). Rather, it is solely employed to reduce or block non-visible electromagnetic radiation in the ultra-violet area of the spectrum.



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

And you're 100% wrong to say that the luminescence (or "luminesence") is captured by ultra-violet photography. Luminol emits light wholly within the visible part of the spectrum, meaning that in order to record that luminescence one must take a regular photograph that reacts to light within the visible portion of the spectum - i.e. a regular photograph, as could be taken with any normal digital SLR camera, provided the photo was taken in a dark room with a lengthened exposure (owing to the very dim nature of the luminescence). Indeed, as Planigale told you already, if one attempted to record the luminescence of Luminol with a camera which photographed in the UV portion of the spectrum, this would be as useful as a chocolate teapot, since none of Luminol's luminescence happens within the UV.


Still chuckling at the "efflorescence" illiteracy though

Last edited by LondonJohn; 13th April 2017 at 03:17 PM.
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, 06:14 PM   #123
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,910
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. That is NOT what it is for at all.

The role of a UV filter is to block out ultra-violet light. "The blue in the atmosphere" (whatever THAT means....) is visible (blue) light. Ultra-violet light is not in the visible part of the spectrum. The clue, you see, lies in the very word "ultra-violet": it means "above the violet (frequency)". Violet is at the upper end of the visible part of the spectrum (ROYGBIV); ultra-violet is thus above and outside the visible part of the spectrum.

So the role of a UV filter has nothing whatsoever to do with "blocking out....blue" (or, for that matter, blocking out any other visible colour of light). Rather, it is solely employed to reduce or block non-visible electromagnetic radiation in the ultra-violet area of the spectrum.

And you're 100% wrong to say that the luminescence (or "luminesence") is captured by ultra-violet photography. Luminol emits light wholly within the visible part of the spectrum, meaning that in order to record that luminescence one must take a regular photograph that reacts to light within the visible portion of the spectum - i.e. a regular photograph, as could be taken with any normal digital SLR camera, provided the photo was taken in a dark room with a lengthened exposure (owing to the very dim nature of the luminescence). Indeed, as Planigale told you already, if one attempted to record the luminescence of Luminol with a camera which photographed in the UV portion of the spectrum, this would be as useful as a chocolate teapot, since none of Luminol's luminescence happens within the UV.


Still chuckling at the "efflorescence" illiteracy though
It really is interesting to watch someone over and over and over again act like they are knowledgeable about something they are grossly ignorant of.
__________________
“ 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 13th April 2017, 07:07 PM   #124
whoanellie
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 211
Wink

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It really is interesting to watch someone over and over and over again act like they are knowledgeable about something they are grossly ignorant of.
This example is particularly humorous and informative. I never knew the word efflorescence until today!!
whoanellie 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, 07:15 PM   #125
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
This example is particularly humorous and informative. I never knew the word efflorescence until today!!
I'm still trying to figure out how "efflorescence" has anything to do with this case!

Throwing around "big words" doesn't work with this group. You'd think someone would know this by now. Apparently not.
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, 07:41 PM   #126
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm still trying to figure out how "efflorescence" has anything to do with this case!

Throwing around "big words" doesn't work with this group. You'd think someone would know this by now. Apparently not.
The suggestion that the RTIGF (final technical report assembled from lab data records) is more relevant evidence than the SAL (lab data records) should also be met with skepticism.

Both are documentary evidence, and the SAL is the record more contemporaneous with the lab testing (assuming that there has been no dry-lab cheating in which the lab record is produced after the final report). The best evidence rule implies that the more contemporaneous record is more credible evidence.

"Documentary evidence must meet the requirements of the “best evidence rule” before it can be admitted into court. The best evidence rule requires that either an original of a document (including a film or other recording) or a reliable duplicate be used." The final report is a copy of the information in the SAL with interpretation added.

See: http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/...tary-evidence/

Here's an excerpt from "GUIDELINES FOR FORENSIC LABORATORY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES" of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors:

"DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY
Laboratory records must be open for reasonable access when legitimate requests are made by officers of the court. When release of information if authorized by management, all employees must avoid misrepresentations and/or obstructions."

Source: http://www.ascld-lab.org/wp-content/...abmgtguide.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 13th April 2017 at 07:43 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, 07:56 PM   #127
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It really is interesting to watch someone over and over and over again act like they are knowledgeable about something they are grossly ignorant of.
You've gotta love what Vixen has taught us today;

o TMB was not really used on the Luminol traces. The negative results on the SALs was just a latent, default value.

o TMB is wrong 50% of the time and test results can be completely ignored if you don't like them.

o Luminol requires UV light and UV photography to photograph the reaction.

o "for having not committed the act" isn't really supposed to be in the Marasca report. It's basically a copy/paste error.

o Amanda's DNA found on the sink in the bathroom had to have come from either "Amanda's own blood OR her rubbing her hands vigorously to cause skin cells rich in DNA to be deposited". It's not possible that her DNA is from her saliva, one of the richest sources of DNA, and something we spit into the sink two to three times a day.

o Prints made from someone's blood doesn't need to contain that person's DNA.

I'm sure there was more to be learned today but I can only absorb so much. Tomorrow's another day.
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 14th April 2017, 12:02 AM   #128
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,144
Just to clarify. Luminescence is the emission of light from a substance. Luminol emits blue light when haemoglobin or another catalyst causes oxidation of Luminol. A good example is crushing a sugar cube in the dark - triboluminescence. Cold lights are another example.

Fluorescence is the re-emission of light usually of a longer wave length in response to illumination. We are most familiar with the idea of UV illumination in forensic science when it is often used to look for semen stains, this is how Vinci identified the suspect semen stain missed by Steffanoni. Tonic water fluoresces which is why it is a cool drink when clubbing, whiter than white washing powders contain fluorescent chemicals that re-emit blue light to give that blue-white look.
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 14th April 2017, 12:38 AM   #129
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,144
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.
Could you give a reference for this?

Remember Sarah Gino's testimony that in her experience 50% of Luminol positive stains were TMB negative means that the false positive rate of Luminol is 50% NOT that TMB has a 50% false negative rate.
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 14th April 2017, 01:41 AM   #130
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,928
OK, fair enough. Forensic scientists use a simple colour film for luminol flourescence filming in the dark or ordinary digital camera settings one or two exposure settings below normal. Silly me xx
__________________
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 14th April 2017, 02:34 AM   #131
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,526
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. That is NOT what it is for at all.

The role of a UV filter is to block out ultra-violet light. "The blue in the atmosphere" (whatever THAT means....) is visible (blue) light. Ultra-violet light is not in the visible part of the spectrum. The clue, you see, lies in the very word "ultra-violet": it means "above the violet (frequency)". Violet is at the upper end of the visible part of the spectrum (ROYGBIV); ultra-violet is thus above and outside the visible part of the spectrum.

So the role of a UV filter has nothing whatsoever to do with "blocking out....blue" (or, for that matter, blocking out any other visible colour of light). Rather, it is solely employed to reduce or block non-visible electromagnetic radiation in the ultra-violet area of the spectrum.




And you're 100% wrong to say that the luminescence (or "luminesence") is captured by ultra-violet photography. Luminol emits light wholly within the visible part of the spectrum, meaning that in order to record that luminescence one must take a regular photograph that reacts to light within the visible portion of the spectum - i.e. a regular photograph, as could be taken with any normal digital SLR camera, provided the photo was taken in a dark room with a lengthened exposure (owing to the very dim nature of the luminescence). Indeed, as Planigale told you already, if one attempted to record the luminescence of Luminol with a camera which photographed in the UV portion of the spectrum, this would be as useful as a chocolate teapot, since none of Luminol's luminescence happens within the UV.


Still chuckling at the "efflorescence" illiteracy though
Oh, I know what Vixen refers to. Back in the old days of traditional film photography, for a variety of reasons, highly sunlit subjects could have a blue cast. It was a combination of factors, but it was de riguer to fit a UV filter to one's lens. Here is one of mine. Vixen quite clearly heard of it sometime in the past, but really never understood it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20170414_103346[1].jpg (43.9 KB, 1 views)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   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 14th April 2017, 05:56 AM   #132
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,847
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
OK, fair enough. Forensic scientists use a simple colour film for luminol flourescence filming in the dark or ordinary digital camera settings one or two exposure settings below normal. Silly me xx
What then was the purpose of a dozen posts where you just made stuff up?
__________________
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 14th April 2017, 06:54 AM   #133
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,910
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Oh, I know what Vixen refers to. Back in the old days of traditional film photography, for a variety of reasons, highly sunlit subjects could have a blue cast. It was a combination of factors, but it was de riguer to fit a UV filter to one's lens. Here is one of mine. Vixen quite clearly heard of it sometime in the past, but really never understood it.
You're giving her too much credit.
__________________
“ 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 14th April 2017, 07:21 AM   #134
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You're giving her too much credit.
Yeah, it's literally just a string of words "big words big words sound smart MENSA sound smart big words MENSA chess champion random latin phrases big words"

It gets a bit tiresome after awhile. At least she is good at baiting people and disrupting discussion. Everyone has at least one talent.
NotEvenWrong 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 14th April 2017, 08:09 AM   #135
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Just to be clear, the word "fluorescence" has a specific scientific meaning; it is not merely the emission of light from a material, but the emission of light of lower energy (longer wavelength) from a material following the excitation of that material by light of higher energy (shorter wavelength). The light emission from luminol as used in forensic detection of blood is not fluorescence.

It is chemiluminescence, the emission of light from a material (or combination of materials) due to a chemical reaction within that material (or combination) and which is not dependent on any excitation by a higher energy light.

Again, for clarity, by higher energy light, one means shorter wavelength light, which may be ultraviolet (UV) light, and by lower energy light, one means longer wavelength light, which compared to UV light may be blue or other visible spectrum light.

Thus, the light emission observed in photographs of the "blobs" (alleged foot tracks) in this case and from the protective boots of the police and ruler are not due to any excitation by UV light; the light emission indicates some material(s) which is (are) interacting with the luminol to produce blue light. The negative reaction (lack of reaction) of the "blobs" and TMB indicates that the material of the blobs reacting with the luminol does not include any blood.
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 14th April 2017, 08:17 AM   #136
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
OK, fair enough. Forensic scientists use a simple colour film for luminol flourescence filming in the dark or ordinary digital camera settings one or two exposure settings below normal. Silly me xx
Hey, you had it wrong. That's fine. What was silly was your continued effort to prove you were knowledgeable of the subject when you weren't.

Next, I'd ask you to go do some research on each of the following points and if you disagree with any of them then please present an argument as to why, including links to documentation (i.e., technical journals, forensic research, etc., not what the judge said) that would support your argument. I have not provided any links myself but if you feel they are needed I will provide them.

- TMB is a very sensitive test for blood and, like Luminol, a negative result is a very reliable indicator that blood is not present. Both are highly vulnerable to false positives which is why they are considered presumptive only.

- Yes, TMB is not as sensitive as Luminol but that's like arguing a Ferrari isn't as fast as a Lamborghini. Perhaps true, but the Ferrari is still really fast. If the lower limit of TMB was that easy to reach it would not still be one of the most commonly used presumptive tests kits in the field and lab today.

- Blood is rich in DNA and as such, it is very unlikely to find a blood sample that can not produce a DNA profile.

With that said, it should be easy to understand the following conclusion;

- A trace that reacts to Luminol but not with TMB, and which also does not contain the DNA of the victim is NOT a trace made from the victim's blood.

I would concede it would be possible, albeit very unlikely, that these results could be observed on a sample that was in fact made from the victim's blood, but in such a case it would be an isolated instance of a very faint trace that through environmental conditions was degraded to the extent that it was beyond the capabilities of TMB to detect it and where all of the DNA was destroyed. But in this case there are more than a dozen samples that exhibit the same results and these are not small, faint traces. It's about time the PGP admits there was something else reacting to the Luminol that was not Meredith's blood.

Oh, and since you now understand how Luminol works and is photographed I would hope you would also now admit that what we see on the ruler and the booties is a substance that reacted to Luminol and not something that was lit up by UV light.
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 14th April 2017, 08:34 AM   #137
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Just to be clear, the word "fluorescence" has a specific scientific meaning; it is not merely the emission of light from a material, but the emission of light of lower energy (longer wavelength) from a material following the excitation of that material by light of higher energy (shorter wavelength). The light emission from luminol as used in forensic detection of blood is not fluorescence.

It is chemiluminescence, the emission of light from a material (or combination of materials) due to a chemical reaction within that material (or combination) and which is not dependent on any excitation by a higher energy light.

Again, for clarity, by higher energy light, one means shorter wavelength light, which may be ultraviolet (UV) light, and by lower energy light, one means longer wavelength light, which compared to UV light may be blue or other visible spectrum light.

Thus, the light emission observed in photographs of the "blobs" (alleged foot tracks) in this case and from the protective boots of the police and ruler are not due to any excitation by UV light; the light emission indicates some material(s) which is (are) interacting with the luminol to produce blue light. The negative reaction (lack of reaction) of the "blobs" and TMB indicates that the material of the blobs reacting with the luminol does not include any blood.
The irony, of course, is that the site that Vixen linked to actually made this pretty clear... she just didn't understand what the site was saying.

I also get why someone who is completely sold on the Nencini view of things would argue so vehemently that something other than the Luminol was lighting up the ruler and the booties - because the alternative (i.e., the truth) is it proves there is contamination on those items and that suggests sloppy police work.

Going off on a tangent...

One of the things that has always puzzled me is WHY the SP came in there 46 days after the fact, after the cottage was turned upside down and people had traipsed up and down the hallway where visible blood tracks existed and after having been inside a very bloody bedroom, and sprayed with Luminol. Conceptually, forensic police turn to Luminol to look for blood in a location where they expect to find blood but haven't. It is typically done early on when the scene is still relatively pristine. What made them think there was hidden blood traces in locations where they had already discovered visible blood traces? I'd love to hear from some seasoned forensic investigators on whether it would be considered normal to have sprayed Luminol under these circumstances.

Oh, and OT and on another tangent (not sure why I just thought of this, but...) Guede testified they didn't have sex because neither of them had a condom. However, one of the arguments used to suggest Meredith had issues with Amanda was that she stored condoms and a vibrator in the bathroom. Why did no one ever mention this to blow yet another major hole in Guede's story?

OK, sorry.. slow Friday.
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 14th April 2017, 08:56 AM   #138
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,910
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
Yeah, it's literally just a string of words "big words big words sound smart MENSA sound smart big words MENSA chess champion random latin phrases big words"

It gets a bit tiresome after awhile. At least she is good at baiting people and disrupting discussion. Everyone has at least one talent.
The only thing I can say is that this thread would have died without Vixen. If ever there was an example of that conflict is necessary to maintain interest, this thread is it.
__________________
“ 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 14th April 2017, 10:23 AM   #139
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
The irony, of course, is that the site that Vixen linked to actually made this pretty clear... she just didn't understand what the site was saying.

I also get why someone who is completely sold on the Nencini view of things would argue so vehemently that something other than the Luminol was lighting up the ruler and the booties - because the alternative (i.e., the truth) is it proves there is contamination on those items and that suggests sloppy police work.

Going off on a tangent...

One of the things that has always puzzled me is WHY the SP came in there 46 days after the fact, after the cottage was turned upside down and people had traipsed up and down the hallway where visible blood tracks existed and after having been inside a very bloody bedroom, and sprayed with Luminol. Conceptually, forensic police turn to Luminol to look for blood in a location where they expect to find blood but haven't. It is typically done early on when the scene is still relatively pristine. What made them think there was hidden blood traces in locations where they had already discovered visible blood traces? I'd love to hear from some seasoned forensic investigators on whether it would be considered normal to have sprayed Luminol under these circumstances.

Oh, and OT and on another tangent (not sure why I just thought of this, but...) Guede testified they didn't have sex because neither of them had a condom. However, one of the arguments used to suggest Meredith had issues with Amanda was that she stored condoms and a vibrator in the bathroom. Why did no one ever mention this to blow yet another major hole in Guede's story?
OK, sorry.. slow Friday.
This has been brought up in other groups and in article comment sections I've seen.

The whole "condoms/bunny vibrator upset sensitive Meredith" story has always seemed ridiculous to me. I highly doubt Meredith was such a shrinking violet that she was offended or upset. After all, she was no virginal nun. I do believe she mentioned it to her British friends but I'd bet she did so in an off-hand manner while discussing her American roommate and they exaggerated the whole thing.
After all, Meredith spoke to Amanda about needing to scrub the toilet but she never said anything to her about putting her case with the bunny vibrator and condoms out of view. I'd think she'd have done so if she was that offended by them. It was much ado about nothing and just another example of painting Amanda as a slutty, insensitive "b" to foster the (unsupported) "bad relationship" motive the prosecution put forth.
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 14th April 2017, 10:36 AM   #140
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
OK, fair enough. Forensic scientists use a simple colour film for luminol flourescence filming in the dark or ordinary digital camera settings one or two exposure settings below normal. Silly me xx
Now that that's settled, what was the luminol on the shoe cover and ruler reacting to?

I'm reposting my still unanswered questions here for your convenience. Maybe you'll actually answer them. Hope springs eternal.

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?

4) If no TMB tests were performed as you claim, why did the prosecution not put Stefanoni on the stand to refute that the samples tested negative for blood?
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 14th April 2017, 01:13 PM   #141
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,910
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This has been brought up in other groups and in article comment sections I've seen.

The whole "condoms/bunny vibrator upset sensitive Meredith" story has always seemed ridiculous to me. I highly doubt Meredith was such a shrinking violet that she was offended or upset. After all, she was no virginal nun. I do believe she mentioned it to her British friends but I'd bet she did so in an off-hand manner while discussing her American roommate and they exaggerated the whole thing.
After all, Meredith spoke to Amanda about needing to scrub the toilet but she never said anything to her about putting her case with the bunny vibrator and condoms out of view. I'd think she'd have done so if she was that offended by them. It was much ado about nothing and just another example of painting Amanda as a slutty, insensitive "b" to foster the (unsupported) "bad relationship" motive the prosecution put forth.
Of course the bunny vibrator didn't offend any of the girls. This is 2007. This story had to have sex in it.
__________________
“ 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 14th April 2017, 01:59 PM   #142
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This has been brought up in other groups and in article comment sections I've seen.

The whole "condoms/bunny vibrator upset sensitive Meredith" story has always seemed ridiculous to me. I highly doubt Meredith was such a shrinking violet that she was offended or upset. After all, she was no virginal nun. I do believe she mentioned it to her British friends but I'd bet she did so in an off-hand manner while discussing her American roommate and they exaggerated the whole thing.
After all, Meredith spoke to Amanda about needing to scrub the toilet but she never said anything to her about putting her case with the bunny vibrator and condoms out of view. I'd think she'd have done so if she was that offended by them. It was much ado about nothing and just another example of painting Amanda as a slutty, insensitive "b" to foster the (unsupported) "bad relationship" motive the prosecution put forth.
I was actually referring to Guede's claim that they didn't have sex because neither of them brought a condom. Apparently he was unaware Meredith did have access to a condom, exposing the lie. It's not like we needed more evidence of his lies but this was a big one. She invites him to the cottage; they do a little fooling around but "we didn't have sex because neither of us brought a condom". Uh, Guede... she DID have condoms... care to try again. I just don't recall seeing anyone mentioning this contradiction.

No one in their right mind ever believed the vibrator and condoms offended Meredith. If they had she would have put them in Amanda's room and told her so.
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 14th April 2017, 02:26 PM   #143
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,847
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I was actually referring to Guede's claim that they didn't have sex because neither of them brought a condom. Apparently he was unaware Meredith did have access to a condom, exposing the lie. It's not like we needed more evidence of his lies but this was a big one. She invites him to the cottage; they do a little fooling around but "we didn't have sex because neither of us brought a condom". Uh, Guede... she DID have condoms... care to try again. I just don't recall seeing anyone mentioning this contradiction.

No one in their right mind ever believed the vibrator and condoms offended Meredith. If they had she would have put them in Amanda's room and told her so.
IMV this was used by investigators along with the generalized marijuana use at the cottage - by all! - to lean on the women upstairs. Evidence of this is when Filomena was confronted at trial about her own marijuana use; such thing now public in a lurid case could effect her career adversely.

Her response? "Yes I have sinned." As long as she was properly contrite.....
__________________
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 14th April 2017, 02:58 PM   #144
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,432
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/w...e-iphone-share

Originally Posted by NY Times
the president is “very upset” with the ingratitude of Ms. Knox, who supported Hillary Clinton.

Lol Trump is mad, mad about Amanda Knox!


She's gonna get MOABd.
bagels 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 14th April 2017, 03:52 PM   #145
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,910
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I was actually referring to Guede's claim that they didn't have sex because neither of them brought a condom. Apparently he was unaware Meredith did have access to a condom, exposing the lie. It's not like we needed more evidence of his lies but this was a big one. She invites him to the cottage; they do a little fooling around but "we didn't have sex because neither of us brought a condom". Uh, Guede... she DID have condoms... care to try again. I just don't recall seeing anyone mentioning this contradiction.

No one in their right mind ever believed the vibrator and condoms offended Meredith. If they had she would have put them in Amanda's room and told her so.
This was all about painting Amanda as the dirty slutty American girl.
__________________
“ 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 14th April 2017, 03:58 PM   #146
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,910
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/w...e-iphone-share

Lol Trump is mad, mad about Amanda Knox!


She's gonna get MOABd.
Trump is a strange one. I can't see why he would care. But he's always been the kind of person who easily gets offended.
__________________
“ 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 14th April 2017, 04:02 PM   #147
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Trump is a strange one. I can't see why he would care. But he's always been the kind of person who easily gets offended.

He has textbook narcissism.

*in extremely Seinfeld voice* not that there's anything wrong with that!
bagels 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 14th April 2017, 04:27 PM   #148
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
He has textbook narcissism.

*in extremely Seinfeld voice* not that there's anything wrong with that!
Ya think?!

His skin is as thin as an onion's. And the same color.

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 14th April 2017, 04:32 PM   #149
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
deleted

Last edited by Stacyhs; 14th April 2017 at 04:37 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 14th April 2017, 04:34 PM   #150
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
[quote=Stacyhs;11800278]
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
IMV this was used by investigators along with the generalized marijuana use at the cottage - by all! - to lean on the women upstairs. Evidence of this is when Filomena was confronted at trial about her own marijuana use; such thing now public in a lurid case could effect her career adversely.

Her response? "Yes I have sinned." As long as she was properly contrite.....[/QUOTE]

She also lied on the stand. What she said was
Quote:
Io dico la verità, ho peccato una volta. Ho peccato.
Quote:
I'm telling the truth, I have sinned once. I have sinned.
If anyone believes she only smoked weed once, then they are as gullible as they come.
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 14th April 2017, 05:15 PM   #151
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,847
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If anyone believes she only smoked weed once, then they are as gullible as they come.
Apparently she didn't inhale......
__________________
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 14th April 2017, 05:52 PM   #152
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Apparently she didn't inhale......
Oh. Well, okay then!
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 15th April 2017, 03:51 AM   #153
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,112
I found this article interesting

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/pol...144730429.html

In the trials of Amanda Knox, who was in her corner?

ETA I see the topic is already under discussion on thread.

Last edited by Samson; 15th April 2017 at 03:56 AM.
Samson 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 15th April 2017, 06:02 AM   #154
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,928
I have started a thread on the salient issue of 'on-line trolling' pertinent to cases such as this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11800692
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 06:13 AM   #155
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. That is NOT what it is for at all.

The role of a UV filter is to block out ultra-violet light. "The blue in the atmosphere" (whatever THAT means....) is visible (blue) light. Ultra-violet light is not in the visible part of the spectrum. The clue, you see, lies in the very word "ultra-violet": it means "above the violet (frequency)". Violet is at the upper end of the visible part of the spectrum (ROYGBIV); ultra-violet is thus above and outside the visible part of the spectrum.

So the role of a UV filter has nothing whatsoever to do with "blocking out....blue" (or, for that matter, blocking out any other visible colour of light). Rather, it is solely employed to reduce or block non-visible electromagnetic radiation in the ultra-violet area of the spectrum.






And you're 100% wrong to say that the luminescence (or "luminesence") is captured by ultra-violet photography. Luminol emits light wholly within the visible part of the spectrum, meaning that in order to record that luminescence one must take a regular photograph that reacts to light within the visible portion of the spectum - i.e. a regular photograph, as could be taken with any normal digital SLR camera, provided the photo was taken in a dark room with a lengthened exposure (owing to the very dim nature of the luminescence). Indeed, as Planigale told you already, if one attempted to record the luminescence of Luminol with a camera which photographed in the UV portion of the spectrum, this would be as useful as a chocolate teapot, since none of Luminol's luminescence happens within the UV.


Still chuckling at the "efflorescence" illiteracy though

So glad to have made your day!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg silly me 5.jpg (46.7 KB, 0 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 15th April 2017, 06:23 AM   #156
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Trump is a strange one. I can't see why he would care. But he's always been the kind of person who easily gets offended.
It's simply his PR chap, George Guido Lombardi, trying to make right wing connections in Europe (Marine Le Pen, for example) for the Donald.

In other words, fake news, pure marketing.

Quote:
The same cannot be said, however, of the populist, anti-establishment leaders in Europe, who seem to have identified the Italian as a potential access point to the Trump administration.

With a deep suspicion of Islam, open borders and the European Union, Mr. Lombardi, 66, considers himself a bridge to Mr. Trump for his old friends and ideological allies in Europe, including Marine Le Pen of France, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and Beppe Grillo, the co-founder of Italy’s insurgent Five Star Movement — “the Trump of Italy,” as Mr. Lombardi calls him.
From: The New York Times


The issue about Amanda not supporting Trump in the elections was FIVE MONTHS ago, as reported here:

Quote:
Knox is now claiming, in her fervent support for the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton, that she despises Trump for his views on the Central Park Five, whom he still refers to as ‘guilty’, despite their exoneration, as contrasted with her, whom he described as ‘completely innocent’. She sees racism in his stance.

Oh, the irony of Knox having fingered an innocent black man for Meredith’s murder. Paradoxically, Knox seems to be saying, they are innocent and Trump calls them guilty, whereas I am guilty and Trump calls me innocent. All because he’s a racist.

Knox vocally states she does not stand with Trump and why should she vote for him, just because he supported her and helped fund her defence? These are all good commendable points. But before we get carried away, whoa! Let’s stop and take a reality check.
Why Donald Ttrump is upset with Amanda Knox.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä

Last edited by Vixen; 15th April 2017 at 06:24 AM.
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 15th April 2017, 06:37 AM   #157
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,847
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have started a thread on the salient issue of 'on-line trolling' pertinent to cases such as this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11800692
Surely there are better sources for this important discussion, but yes it is an important one.
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 06:39 AM   #158
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,847
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So glad to have made your day!
Why, then, make a further dozen posts with further completely made-up claims?
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 06:40 AM   #159
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Surely there are better sources for this important discussion, but yes it is an important one.
You don't think Psychology in Computer Behaviour or the Washington Post or members of the American Psychological Society are 'important source's?

I didn't see you objecting before.
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 06:42 AM   #160
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Why, then, make a further dozen posts with further completely made-up claims?
You do love to dwell on the past.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg silly me 3.jpg (34.8 KB, 0 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
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 02:05 AM.
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.