Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

It's impossible to tell how the "real thing looked like" to the human eye, or to tell about the "real light conditions" on a scene, from a photo. Anyone ho ever made photos at some semi-professional level would know. It's simply impossible.
When it's about photos taken in extreme light conditions, such as those taken in the dark, it's just a joke. Contrast, colour, clarity, and gamm width above all. A photo may just have only a little resemblance with what your eyes can see.

The manipulation of the original crime-scene photos by the police using Photoshop should have been explained in detail to the defense and to the panel of judges, in order to maintain equality of arms - one of the standards of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6. Furthermore, the original photos should also have been introduced into evidence to allow full comparison by the defense and judges.

Failure by the prosecution to fully disclose the best evidence for the crime scene luminol photos is a violation of ECHR Article 6 similar to the failure by the prosecution to provide the Electronic Data Files from the Forensic Police DNA profile tests.

 

[Bill Williams]

(...)

Mach is simply being irrationally selective when he gets to the combining part. He leaves out of account the negative TMB, unexplained absence of confirmatory testing, lies about TMB, body of scientific study and opinion suggesting lack of specificity of luminol, general unreliability of the scientist involved, absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs, lack of substrate controls and the fact that Knox lived there. Apart from all that, his analysis is fine

(...)

the fact that Knox lived there

This is equivalent to acknowleging that the whole innocentisti position rests on a set of assumptions from a conspiracy theory.

ps: "lack of specificity of luminol", is logically irrelevant to the building of a piece of circumstantial evidence (while objections become especially if there is a lack of a plausible alternative), as much as any complaint about some information being "incomplete" is pointless. Circumstantial evidence is by definition incomplete information.
"Negative TMB test" is irrelevant due to properties of TMB (which could only bring redundant information with a minor quality). It would be irrelevant even if positive (this won't be a sufficient reason for not performing the test).
The fact that Knox lived there is obviously pointless, since does not provide any innocent plausible explanation about the dynamic of how the footprints were made (isolated, not in trail), neither about the alternative substance, nor about their belonging to two different individuals, and even less would explain the rest of information (like being found together with prints in diluted blood with identical features on the same crime scene, mixed DNA, latent shoeprint, evidence of cleanup, the fact that they are explained by a murderers/stagers shuffle on the bathmat etc.)

"Absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs" is factually incorrect, since there are instances of mixed DNA Kercher + Knox in three out of ten luminol stains on the floor.
"lack of substrate controls" is merely a complaint of incomplete information and also hardly well founded, since the substrate won't be just walking out from a bathroom, where btw there is no soil but rather bare footprint in diluted blood.

Calling "lies about TMB" or "unexplained", or claims about "general unreliability of the scientist" are distinctive inventions of the innocentisti culture. It's pure conspiracy theory. Nothing of that kind exists within the actual context; there is no evidence of such claims in reality, these things exist in the innocentisti minds.

Either that, or they are the irresistible inference of someone who looks at the body of evidence critically.

And looks at it without the need to prop-up unaccountable cops and Scientific Police, like Judges Nencini and Massei do. Judge Massei was the closest to blowing the whistle on what had happened, because he at least supplied both sides of most of the arguments....

.... and then proceeded to consistently accept the prosecution's word, on no more than their say-so.

Except for those 13 things that I have highlighted ad nauseum. There are at least 13 things from the prosecutions case in 2009 that Massei did not agree with (motive, for instance, as well as the state of Amanda's and Meredith's releationship which Massei regard as normal and friendly).

But you get upset when these are listed. So I'll leave you alone on that.

"......claims about "general unreliability of the scientist" are distinctive inventions of the innocentisti culture......" is a great turn of phrase which the Pro-guilt lobby certainly can get a lot of mileage from - but reading Massei's motivations report from 2010 is more than enough to know something fishy had gone on..... all it took was a judge to consistently rule in favour of one side - and Nencini, for instance, to disallow the defence's motions.

 

[Dan O.]

Failure by the prosecution to fully disclose the best evidence for the crime scene luminol photos is a violation of ECHR Article 6 similar to the failure by the prosecution to provide the Electronic Data Files from the Forensic Police DNA profile tests.

Additionally, the whole set of photos from the December visit were renumbered and rearranged. We don't know if all of the photos were turned over.

Then, did you hear about camera boy taking his own photos with a little point and shoot camera. You probably remember the bloody bathroom photo that was released to the media. Turns out that specific photo was not part of the photo collection in the case file.

 

[JREF2010]

Additionally, the whole set of photos from the December visit were renumbered and rearranged. We don't know if all of the photos were turned over.

Then, did you hear about camera boy taking his own photos with a little point and shoot camera. You probably remember the bloody bathroom photo that was released to the media. Turns out that specific photo was not part of the photo collection in the case file.

the whole lot of them should be fired, Monica Napoleani and others were eventually charged for abusing their badges and caught breaking the law eventually...

but so often it happens the lying the cops did, caused a tidal wave of damage.

 

[Dan O.]

It isn't intertwined with the shoe print. Not all luminol stains were found to be bare foot prints. There are six bare foot prints and one partial shoe prints that glow in luminol on the apartment floor. That one you mean is not a bare foot.

You clearly haven't done your homework to determine the alignment of the shoe that left the shoeprint portion of that stain. Have you even given up on the guilter mantra of Guede walking straight out the front door?

And, where are the Luminol images of the other shoe prints in the hall?

 

[RWVBWL]

How does long straight dark colored hair become short, wavy and blonde?

. . . . .Kind of wish you did write smaller posts
<snip>

Of note, I grabbed my head and pulled a few hairs. I have brown hair maybe slightly lighter than Meredeth has in some pictures of her. Those strands looked about as blond as those that you have posted. Tend to consider it most likely that it is her own hairs.

With the amount of evidence that Guede left at the actual murder scene, I would expect anybody else involved to leave significantly more than a few hairs. Of course the police are pretty incompetent in this case.

Greetings DesertFox and others,
I think that it's always good to do some tests of your own and then share with us the results.
Here's a question for ya: Did your long dark, straight hair also become wavy and kinda curly?

With that said though,
the blonde hair that Dr. Stefanoni describes as seeing,
which she then bags, tests(?) and then loses when in ILE custody,
still bothers me.


All right,
I'm gonna do it, post a few comparison photographs,
you decide if I'm full of it or maybe, just maybe The RW might be right, ok?

Cool,
Ladies and Gentleman of The Public Jury,
let's go to work.

This is a photograph of Meredith, seen on Halloween night,
24 hours or less before she was raped and murdered.:

Note that her hair is long, straight and dark colored.

The next photo is from the Crime Scene,
Meredith is dead, and she has her left arm upraised.
Gravity does not seem to have had an effect, her left arm and hand is upraised:

Notice the blood on her left hand,
they seem to be mostly droplets of blood, her duvet was not, in my humble opinion, laying on top of her hand yet as these blood drops started to dry, the drops do not appear to be smeared much on the top of her hand. The duvet was placed atop her later IMHO, after her blood drops had coagulated.

There also does not look like much blood on her hand and fingers, as if she had her hands free to touch and protect her gnarly neck wound as her life's blood bled out from her body, which can seen here if you are interested in viewing the fatal wound:
http://images.teinteresa.es/sucesos/agonica-muerte-Meredith-Kercher_TINIMA20110907_1137_18.jpg


This photograph below shows a hair that Dr. Stefanoni says is blonde,
found in Meredith's grasp as she lay dead, murdered on her bedroom floor, from what I gather:

There was another blonde hair that was found upon examination of Miss Kercher's vagina.
Found upon examination of Meredith when in her bedroom , still at the Crime Scene,
before Raff and Amanda were even considered suspects, it seems.

Look at that hair strand closely,
seen in Miss Kercher's upraised left hands dying grasp.
The hair is blonde colored. Dr. Stefanoni said so. Surely Dr. Stef could tell the difference of a blonde hair vs Meredith's dark hair, some of which was seen, videoed+photographed, dark hair that was pulled out and lay on her bedroom floor nearby her, in her own blood.

That hair strand in her left hand grasp does not appear bloody.

Why not?

All around Meredith's neck and head there was so much blood.
Wouldn't any hair that Meredith have grabbed of her own, near her throat wound,
have had lots of her blood on it? Wouldn't her finger tips too be covered in her blood?

This hair was grasp by Meredith,
in my humble opinion, right before she died, to help,
as FS on Perugia Shock wrote, Point at The Murderer.
As this person was sexually assault her when she died.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html



That short hair strand seen above in Meredith's dying grasp,
curvy, wavy, + short,
does not match Meredith's long, dark, much straighter hair.
In my surfer opinion.

But it much better matches a shorter, curlier or wavy hair strand of many a male I known of,
as I've tried to point out over the last few years.

Heck, it kinda looks like my own wavy hair, seen today:

as I wore a beanie at the beach and asked a bro, a fellow surfer/photographer to take a pic of it.

Notice the wavy, curly short length of the back of my beach blonde hair?
Kinda looks like the wavy, curly blonde hair found in the blood splattered hand of Meredith Kercher's upraised arm and in her hands dying grasp.


Do you folks really think that the blonde hair that Dr. Stefanoni collected,
as seen above, and then conveniently lost(?) is from Meredith Kercher?

Or that it is a curvy, wavy fiber pulled from her duvet,
which seems to have been placed over her after she died, after her blood drop coagulated?
Weird that another 1 was found upon examination of her genitalia.

Or is it from someone else, someone other than Rudy Guede?
Might that be why the semen stain results were never released the we hear Dr. Stefanoni telling her assistant Alessa to test? Just wondering why The Prosecution never told the Court that the semen stains were from Rudy Guede, and why the blonde, curvy, wavy hairs were lost...
RW

 

[Desert Fox]

I will likely answer in more detail later but do you trust Dr. Stefanoni on anything. . . .I would not take her word if she says the sky is blue

 

[anglolawyer]

the fact that Knox lived there

This is equivalent to acknowleging that the whole innocentisti position rests on a set of assumptions from a conspiracy theory.

ps: "lack of specificity of luminol", is logically irrelevant to the building of a piece of circumstantial evidence (while objections become especially if there is a lack of a plausible alternative), as much as any complaint about some information being "incomplete" is pointless. Circumstantial evidence is by definition incomplete information.
"Negative TMB test" is irrelevant due to properties of TMB (which could only bring redundant information with a minor quality). It would be irrelevant even if positive (this won't be a sufficient reason for not performing the test).
The fact that Knox lived there is obviously pointless, since does not provide any innocent plausible explanation about the dynamic of how the footprints were made (isolated, not in trail), neither about the alternative substance, nor about their belonging to two different individuals, and even less would explain the rest of information (like being found together with prints in diluted blood with identical features on the same crime scene, mixed DNA, latent shoeprint, evidence of cleanup, the fact that they are explained by a murderers/stagers shuffle on the bathmat etc.)

"Absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs" is factually incorrect, since there are instances of mixed DNA Kercher + Knox in three out of ten luminol stains on the floor.
"lack of substrate controls" is merely a complaint of incomplete information and also hardly well founded, since the substrate won't be just walking out from a bathroom, where btw there is no soil but rather bare footprint in diluted blood.

Calling "lies about TMB" or "unexplained", or claims about "general unreliability of the scientist" are distinctive inventions of the innocentisti culture. It's pure conspiracy theory. Nothing of that kind exists within the actual context; there is no evidence of such claims in reality, these things exist in the innocentisti minds.

Alright. Tell us what happened. Explain what facts we are to infer from this item of circumstantial evidence. Did Knox walk barefoot in Kercher's blood, then pad it around, then clean it up with the cleaning materials she bought at Quintavalle's and the suspicious mop? You have to have a theory. You can't just shout 'circumstantial evidence!' and leave it at that.

 

[MichaelB]

RWVBWL,

Where did you get that photo of her hand from?

 

[anglolawyer]

the fact that Knox lived there

This is equivalent to acknowleging that the whole innocentisti position rests on a set of assumptions from a conspiracy theory.

ps: "lack of specificity of luminol", is logically irrelevant to the building of a piece of circumstantial evidence (while objections become especially if there is a lack of a plausible alternative), as much as any complaint about some information being "incomplete" is pointless. Circumstantial evidence is by definition incomplete information.
Meaningless. You seem to have an endless stock of these catchy aphorisms, each requiring several paragraphs of rebuttal. If you say there is no plausible alternative explanation for the luminol hits, just say so without all the other crap. The highlighted sentence, for example, is nonsense. It's another straw man 'correction' of a proposition that has not been advanced. You seem to suffer from the Italian urge to systematise everything, as if one were unable to write without an accompanying commentary on the grammar involved.


"Negative TMB test" is irrelevant due to properties of TMB (which could only bring redundant information with a minor quality). It would be irrelevant even if positive (this won't be a sufficient reason for not performing the test).

What? Negative TMB suggests the luminol did not detect blood so it's not irrelevant. In my jurisdiction, witnesses swear to tel the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. People often forget about the middle bit - the whole truth - which would have included the facts that TMB tests had been conducted with negative result.

The fact that Knox lived there is obviously pointless, since does not provide any innocent plausible explanation about the dynamic of how the footprints were made (isolated, not in trail), neither about the alternative substance, nor about their belonging to two different individuals, and even less would explain the rest of information (like being found together with prints in diluted blood with identical features on the same crime scene, mixed DNA, latent shoeprint, evidence of cleanup, the fact that they are explained by a murderers/stagers shuffle on the bathmat etc.)

As requested above, please explain what facts the luminol evidence proves.

"Absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs" is factually incorrect, since there are instances of mixed DNA Kercher + Knox in three out of ten luminol stains on the floor.

Assuming this is correct, it further suggests to me the blobs can't be blood since we would expect to find Kercher DNA in all of them, but this is for the scientists, not me.


"lack of substrate controls" is merely a complaint of incomplete information and also hardly well founded, since the substrate won't be just walking out from a bathroom, where btw there is no soil but rather bare footprint in diluted blood.

Suppose we had a witness who gave this evidence: 'My name is Antonio Curatolo. I am a drug-addicted, park bench bum. On the night of 1st November 2007 I was snoozing on my bench in Piazza Grimana when I was rudely awoken by the sound of two young people, one male, one female, arguing. They looked like the persons accused in this case.

Signed [etc]'

Would it merely be a complaint about incomplete information to leave out of this statement the further facts that they were supposedly there the whole time between 9.30 and midnight, there were disco buses and the witness had testified on previous occasions as a witness in murder cases at the behest of the cops?

Substrate controls would tell us whether other, non-suspicious areas of the floor also had traces of the occupants' DNA. That is relevant information which would assist in evaluating the evidence.

Calling "lies about TMB" or "unexplained", or claims about "general unreliability of the scientist" are distinctive inventions of the innocentisti culture. It's pure conspiracy theory. Nothing of that kind exists within the actual context; there is no evidence of such claims in reality, these things exist in the innocentisti minds.
Agreed, they do.

Replies in italics.

 

[MichaelB]

Check out this new timeline image.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/timeline-november-1/

 

[Numbers]

the fact that Knox lived there

This is equivalent to acknowleging that the whole innocentisti position rests on a set of assumptions from a conspiracy theory.

ps: "lack of specificity of luminol", is logically irrelevant to the building of a piece of circumstantial evidence (while objections become especially if there is a lack of a plausible alternative), as much as any complaint about some information being "incomplete" is pointless. Circumstantial evidence is by definition incomplete information.
"Negative TMB test" is irrelevant due to properties of TMB (which could only bring redundant information with a minor quality). It would be irrelevant even if positive (this won't be a sufficient reason for not performing the test).
The fact that Knox lived there is obviously pointless, since does not provide any innocent plausible explanation about the dynamic of how the footprints were made (isolated, not in trail), neither about the alternative substance, nor about their belonging to two different individuals, and even less would explain the rest of information (like being found together with prints in diluted blood with identical features on the same crime scene, mixed DNA, latent shoeprint, evidence of cleanup, the fact that they are explained by a murderers/stagers shuffle on the bathmat etc.)

"Absence of Kercher DNA in the luminol blobs" is factually incorrect, since there are instances of mixed DNA Kercher + Knox in three out of ten luminol stains on the floor.
"lack of substrate controls" is merely a complaint of incomplete information and also hardly well founded, since the substrate won't be just walking out from a bathroom, where btw there is no soil but rather bare footprint in diluted blood.

Calling "lies about TMB" or "unexplained", or claims about "general unreliability of the scientist" are distinctive inventions of the innocentisti culture. It's pure conspiracy theory. Nothing of that kind exists within the actual context; there is no evidence of such claims in reality, these things exist in the innocentisti minds.

Machiavelli's statements provide a never-ending collection of irrelevant and generally off-base misrepresentations. His attempts to redefine terms such as "circumstantial evidence" to further his illogical constructs would be a source of laughs in a comedy routine, but are here attempts at obfuscation.

For example, take the highlighted statement about the lack of specificity of luminol. Knowing what are the limits of a scientific test used for forensics is critical to applying it to any crime investigation. Mach's smoke screen here is to distort the definition of "circumstantial evidence" - giving the impression that it consists of a compilation of small bits of inaccuracies that added together somehow are true and make sense. This may be a definition idiosyncratic to some Italian courts, but is not what "circumstantial evidence" is taken to mean in western democratic judicial practice.

Almost all evidence introduced into a trial will be circumstantial; the alternative is "direct evidence", which is defined as 1) eyewitness testimony to the crime itself (including confession) and 2) photographic or similar recording of the crime itself. Other evidence, including but not limited to finger prints, ballistics or weapon identification, blood identification and typing, DNA profiles, and eyewitness accounts of persons seen in proximity or not in proximity to a crime scene are "circumstantial evidence" = evidence requiring inference to form a theory of the crime. Each piece of direct or circumstantial evidence must be individually examined for reliability: is the evidence the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Only reliable evidence may be assembled into a construct that provides a theory of the crime. If the evidence is only probabilistic, that must be acknowledged and accounted for (that is, appropriately discounted) in assembling the evidence construct.

For the italicized statement in green type, Mach is suggesting a "transformation to inculpatory evidence by association". As an analogy, if a rancher brings horses closely adjacent to his cattle (cows and steers) to herd the cattle, Mach would have us believe that the horses become cows and steers. Again, a basic error in logic hiding in a forest of words. It's far from the only one in Mach's statements.

 

[Kauffer]

I generally note that some luminol-positive stains do have Ms. Kercher's DNA. What is your explanation for the lack her DNA in the rest? Blood is known to be rich in DNA, so where is Ms. Kercher's DNA in the other seven. And why wouldn't a substrate control be helpful in situations such as this one?

The relationship between DNA sampling and blood sampling seems, to a layman like me, to be very important to this case. Should we conclude that a DNA negative result precludes the the existence of blood? I vaguely remember Peter Gill (perhaps) getting close to saying this, but not actually definitively. When, if ever, might this not be true? However, I remember you being very interested in the blood rep found in Romanelli's room - you raised it in a phone in to Bruce Fisher's radio show when he interviewed Ron Hendry - Yet, it would appear that this sample tested negative for DNA. How so? A related argument exists with the kitchen knife; if the knife was bleach cleaned of blood, could human DNA survive? I wonder if you would think it reasonable to say that the absence of Kercher DNA in most of the luminol hits is actually better evidence that there was no blood even than the negative TMB tests?

 

[Diocletus]

If they had a stress test of the Italian justice system, it would fail just like the banks.

 

[Kauffer]

If they had a stress test of the Italian justice system, it would fail just like the banks.

A good analogy. And as evidenced by the queue of Italian cases at the ECHR. It is by no means, however, the only problematic European system.

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli's statements provide a never-ending collection of irrelevant and generally off-base misrepresentations. His attempts to redefine terms such as "circumstantial evidence" to further his illogical constructs would be a source of laughs in a comedy routine, but are here attempts at obfuscation.

For example, take the highlighted statement about the lack of specificity of luminol. Knowing what the limits of a scientific test used for forensics is critical to applying it to any crime investigation. Mach's smoke screen here is to distort the definition of "circumstantial evidence" - giving the impression that it consists of a compilation of small bits of inaccuracies that added together somehow are true and make sense. This may be a definition idiosyncratic to some Italian courts, but is not what "circumstantial evidence" is taken to mean in western democratic judicial practice.

Almost all evidence introduced into a trial will be circumstantial; the alternative is "direct evidence", which is defined as 1) eyewitness testimony to the crime itself (including confession) and 2) photographic or similar recording of the crime itself. Other evidence, including but not limited to finger prints, ballistics or weapon identification, blood identification and typing, DNA profiles, and eyewitness accounts of persons seen in proximity or not in proximity to a crime scene are "circumstantial evidence" = evidence requiring inference to form a theory of the crime. Each piece of direct or circumstantial evidence must be individually examined for reliability: is the evidence the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Only reliable evidence may be assembled into a construct that provides a theory of the crime. If the evidence is only probabilistic, that must be acknowledged and accounted for (that is, appropriately discounted) in assembling the evidence construct.

For the italicized statement in green type, Mach is suggesting a "transformation to inculpatory evidence by association". As an analogy, if a rancher brings horses closely adjacent to his cattle (cows and steers) to herd the cattle, Mach would have us believe that the horses become cows and steers. Again, a basic error in logic hiding in a forest of words. It's far from the only one in Mach's statements.

Numbers, I don't wish to labour this, but additive probabilities are what the Italians use.
1/5th a clue plus 1/5th etc to 5 iterations is inculpatory.

On PMF dot ORG, to huge adulation, a poster has just listed 120 clues.

On a mathematical note, I have pointed out from time to time that if 5 people independently examine the evidence in this case, and the presumption is, because it is highly controversial, and therefore reasonably expected to be a 50/50 call, to find 5 people to agree on a guilty verdict, the odds are
.5*.5*.5*.5*.5 = 0.03125, 0r 3.125%.

What 5 people have independently assessed the evidence, and have vested their lives and futures on agreeing on this result?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Have you ever seen rust stains on tile or concrete? I doubt that the temperature ever got to 900 °C when they were made. BTW your various claims about TMB and luminol run into conflict even with each other. If you wish to claim that luminol has a lower limit of detection (5,000,000 fold dilution versus 1,000,000 fold), well OK. Yet that means that substances such as animal blood might give a false positive with luminol but not with TMB.

Kauffer,

Copper ions, manganese ions, and cobalt ions (maybe nickel also) are all known to cause false positives in one or more presumptive tests. The Lindy Chamberlain and the Gregory Taylor cases are two instances where false positives were probably the result of transition metal ions of the first row.

But all this implies that negative TMB tests do not add any further information.
There is simply no plausible alternative, neither about the substance nor about the dynamic; no theory works comprehensively like the simple assumption they are in diluted blood just like the prints with identical features nearby and are linked in a same event (and eve if there was an alternative plausible explanation - there isn't any - still this would be standing as a piece of circumstantial evidence, because also ambiguous indicators can be circumstantial evidence when the potential incriminating indication is precise).

 

[Numbers]

A good analogy. And as evidenced by the queue of Italian cases at the ECHR. It is by no means, however, the only problematic European system.

To be fair, one can compare Italy in, for example, 2013 violations by ECHR article, to the other 3 countries with the greatest number of pending cases to the ECHR and 2 with a relatively small number. Russia, Turkey, and Germany are each significantly greater in population than Italy.

Country Article 2 Article 5 Article 6
Russia 15 65 25
Turkey 11 35 15
Ukraine 4 28 19
Italy 0 0 7
Germany 0 2 0
UK 0 3 0

Article 2: Right to life - deprivation of life
Article 5: Right to liberty and security
Article 6: Right to fair trial

Conclusion: It's all relative.
ETA: The ECHR judgements are for cases that are typically many years old (often originating 5 to 10 years before the ECHR judgement, at a reasonable guess).

Source: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2013_ENG.pdf

 

[Numbers]

But all this implies that negative TMB tests do not add any further information.
There is simply no plausible alternative, neither about the substance nor about the dynamic; no theory works comprehensively like the simple assumption they are in diluted blood just like the prints with identical features nearby and are linked in a same event (and eve if there was an alternative plausible explanation - there isn't any - still this would be standing as a piece of circumstantial evidence, because also ambiguous indicators can be circumstantial evidence when the potential incriminating indication is precise).

The highlighted statement is false.
The green italicized statement is incredibly and outrageously false.

 

[Kauffer]

But all this implies that negative TMB tests do not add any further information.
There is simply no plausible alternative, neither about the substance nor about the dynamic; no theory works comprehensively like the simple assumption they are in diluted blood just like the prints with identical features nearby and are linked in a same event (and eve if there was an alternative plausible explanation - there isn't any - still this would be standing as a piece of circumstantial evidence, because also ambiguous indicators can be circumstantial evidence when the potential incriminating indication is precise).

Maybe you are being lost on translation, but there is very clearly a plausible alternative explanation for the luminol fluorescence other than that the samples are blood - that the luminol is reacting with something else. This particular debate has gone on for more than five years. Why not now cross the threshold into Ms Kercher's room where the actual murder took place? I am sure you will agree that if Amanda Knox wasn't in that room she couldn't have made bloody prints in the hall. Please explain to me, as if I were a juror, what the evidence for her guilt is INSIDE the room. You make your best efforts to get her to the flat before the murder; you make your best efforts to identify her presence there after the murder. But can you place her in the room?