Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

In the US state of Minnesota, a man who was convicted in 2001 of the 1998 murder of an elderly woman and sentenced to life in prison was released on 7 January 2026 based on a review of the case by the conviction review unit of the Minnesota Attorney General's office. Here are some relevant excerpts from a news article* (italics and bolding are my emphasis):

The [conviction review] unit detailed in a 119-page report that Mr. Pippitt’s conviction was based on unreliable testimony from two witnesses that should have never been presented to the jury. Both witnesses have since recanted their testimony.
.....
The unit’s investigators noted that the lead prosecutor “presented a case theory that conflicted with objective evidence,” and that he was disbarred in Minnesota in 2007.

[The conviction review unit] wrote [in its report] that Ms. Malin’s death “was unquestionably tragic,” leaving “a void in the community that could not be filled, even with the proper identification of the true murderer.”

“And yet, despite the desire for someone to atone for the crime, the atonement cannot be placed on just anybody. Otherwise, it is not justice that is served, it is convenience.”

I believe that the identification of Knox and Sollecito as suspects in the murder/rape of Kercher was, in large part, a matter of convenience for the key Italian authorities.

* Minnesota Man Is Freed After Serving 25 Years for Murder He Did Not Commit
The state’s conviction review unit concluded that Brian Pippitt, 63, was not involved in the 1998 murder of an 84-year-old woman, for which he was serving a life sentence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/brian-pippitt-wrongful-murder-conviction.html

 

[TomG]

I came across the link below from Chris H's blog while trying to find out more about the luminosity of the Luminol results at VDP7. It gives results for both liquid and burnt blood.

www.abacusdiagnostics.com/Detecting_Burnt_Bloodstain_Samples_with_Light_Emitting_Blood_Enhancement_Reagents.pdf

TMB doesn't feature on the chart; however, the way I see it is that if the sensitivity of Luminol is at 1:5,000,000 and TMB is at 1:1,000,000, it's only a fivefold difference, which doesn't seem to be that much. The chart shows a dilution of 1:800,000 recorded at 361 RFUs, so I would put TMB at 1:1,000,000, recording at around 289 RFUs. You have a signal of 100 RFUs not being detectable by the naked eye, so we are entering the territory of very low luminosity when the Luminol reactions at VDP7 were quite vibrant. Vibrant enough for Garofano to conclude that they must be blood.

If TMB at a sensitivity of 1:1,000,000 recorded 289 RFUs at it lowest detection rate and no visible signal is recordable at 100 RFUs then the Luminol traces at VDP7 would have to be invisible or near to invisible, IMO for TMB not to detect it.

I'm no scientist, and I've muddled my way through this, so I'm looking for a better-informed consensus in layman's terms.

Hoots