I'm flabbergasted why you would rely on Stefanoni expertise when in fact it is obvious that she has a clear natural bias as would any tech testifying for the prosecution.
While I agree with you that some of Luminol prints appear to be bare feet, I'm not sure that is the case with all of the prints. Never the less, I'm not sure whether they were made by bare feet has any bearing as to whether or not the substance was blood or not. Also, I'm not sure why it matters that the prints showed up with Luminol at a crime scene considering that a crime scene is about the only place you would apply Luminol. Can't you see that you are using circular logic to confirm your own conclusion?
First you seem to say a confirmatory test should be applied just not TMB. Even though TMB is commonly used as a secondary presumptive test to determine if confirmatory test is required. Then you are willing to contradict yourself because the Luminol prints showed up in a crime scene. Therefore the lack of confirmatory test is not required?
Don't you see that you are just "cherry picking" so you can come to a guilty verdict?
Frankly... I don't follow you. Really. I don't think I "rely"
that much on Stefanoni's expertise, actually I think Stefanoni has really little to do with the footprint evidence. There are print analysis experts for that. And I can look at the footprints evidence myself a little. On the other hand I don't see why should I not trust Stefanoni as a witness: I utterly disagree with anyone who considers her a liar or biased. I see no evidence of that. You can see a prosecutor consultant as naturallly biased, but hardly "naturally a liar".
Then you say:
"Never the less, I'm not sure whether they were made by bare feet has any bearing as to whether or not the substance was blood or not. Also, I'm not sure why it matters that the prints showed up with Luminol at a crime scene considering that a crime scene is about the only place you would apply Luminol".
Unfortunately, I don't see much logic in that. Why it matters that the prints show up at a crime scene, since you only apply luminol on a crime scene? But because most crime scenes don't have bare feet showing up, even less they have isolated bare feet with such features (isolated, no trail); and because, most crime scenes don't have bare feet that show up in diluted blood (on a bathmat); and, really, most scenes don't have isolated bare feet showing up in diluted blood
and isolated bare feet showing up in luminol at the same time;
Should be enough, but there is more; also most scenes don't have bare isolated prints in a diluted luminol-positive substance that belong to two different individuals; and if this was not enough, one of this print has size and shape similar to a print in diluted blood; it's not finihsed, also those prints happen to be all in an area of the house, along the path between the murder room and the suspect's room, explainable through just one dynamic, that would be two people washing themselves ,shuffling with the bathmat to the room and performing a rough cleaning.
And there is more: there are two more instances, two luminol stains also in the room where the putative staging was performed. Those stains yield a mixed DNA profile of victim + Knox. There is no reason for Meredith's DNA to be on the floor of Romanelli's room, and there is absolutely no reasons for Knox's DNA to be in Romanelli's room. Yet they are on the floor, mixed in two stains that are positive to luminol.
And in the the bath where the bare footprints are coming from, there is also blood of Knox, there is also blood of Meredith, and there are also blood stains with mixed DNA of both of them.
But it's me the one who is cherry picking with a confirmatory bias.
I should ignore all this because I don't have a blood confirmatory test? Would that be rational, in your view?
