Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

Response with respect to luminol, Part B

Again it's irrelevant. There is no tests that ever "ruled out" a specific substance, but in evidence assessment process, there is no need to rule out specific substances. The point is that the burden is reversed: there is a need to have a plausible alternative substance and a plausible alternative dynamic, in order to undermine and dismiss the piece of circumstantial evidence.
A link between luminol prints and blood is already expressed by the analogy of features and same context of the luminol prints with the bathmat bare footprints in diluted blood; also, as well as by the peculiarity of the traces themselves, by the coincidence with one of Guede's shoeprints and by other information such as Knox's statements.
And there is no plausible substance containing metal ions. No such substance was detected inside the flat (and all bottles and substances present are recorded); the substances containing metal salts are usually toxic and not for direct human use (enamels, varnishings, gardening products) while the prints are of bare feet. Those alternative substances would react to TMB as well, but they are just not probable nor plausible, there is no evidence of their existence anywhere in the house, and there is no plausible or known dynamic for how a pattern of prints with that set of peculiar features would have been produced in any metal based substance.

Point 6. The correct answer is that a positive result with HemaTrace or the RSID test would do so. Given that HemaTrace can detect blood diluted to levels equal to or beyond what luminol can detect, there is no excuse not to use it. The plausible substances include iron and manganese from soil, iron from rust, and manganese from plant matter.

I have no clue of what Virkler and Lednev said.

Point 7. They are coauthors of a review on forensic testing of body fluids. I have quoted them many times. I asked them about the areas that were negative for TMB or DNA. “So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.”

I don't know why the "second toe" doesn't match, but I can infer that if it's Knox's print, it might be the mark from a drop and not from direct contact. I can also note that the "second toe" in question was never discussed with prosecution's witnesses: when Rinaldi testified, he matched the print to a probable identity with Knox, while none of the defence questioned him about the "second toe".
Obviously it makes no sense to split the question 'whether it is blood' from the rest of the questions. It's worth recall that several prints however can't be matched with sufficient reliability with anyone, but anyway three of them are in Knox's room.

Point 8. When a spot is in the wrong place, one has to explain both its presence and the absence of a spot where it should be. Your explanation fails to explain who there is no spot where the tip of Ms. Knox’s toe should be. It is a track, not a print, and Rinaldi’s supposed expertise is a slender reed on which to lean. Dr. Vinci showed how wrong Rinaldi was about the shoe prints in the murder room. Why should anyone take Rinaldi as an expert, given his dismal track record?

Because the person/s was/were dragging himself/herself on a bathmat and/or an equivalent piece of fabric.

Point 9. Some of the foot tracks in the hallway are supposed to be female and some male. Did both Amanda and Raffaele do this?!

No, it's impossible. The overapplication itself can give autoluminescence as a residual effect, but cannot give to autoluminescence the shape of human feet.

Point 10. My working hypothesis is that luminol reacted to old foot tracks unrelated to the crime. These foot tracks might have been created when iron or manganese on the sole of a foot bonded with the flooring. How the overapplication of luminol might be related to this is an interesting question. Luminol is reported to be able to penetrate through up to 8 layers of paint.

No, not at all.

Point 11. This is just wrong. Any time a supposed expert makes a mistake, it impacts their credibility, as it should, within reason.

Blood.

Point 12. Could it be animal blood? If it were Meredith’s blood, then why isn’t Meredith’s DNA present? Your answer to point 1 is unconvincing and is pure speculation.

All tests serve the same purpose: collect as more information as possible, when it's possible.
The reason why TMB is suggested (by some, but not all authors) is not because it is colorimetric, but because it is cheap and easy, it can be safely recorded. While luminol is better, it has also inconvenients: it is rather difficult to use and what happens if it goes wrong? Like if the photographies are not good enough or if the preparation is bad. Better have a cheap and safe second test, so you still have evidence in any event.
But aftr all, still this question is irrelevant.

Point 13. Every test costs money, and if you follow luminol with TMB, you are spending more money and time than if you just use luminol. Your answer makes no sense; therefore, let’s see what forensic chemists have to say. In “Biological Evidence Collection and Forensic Blood Identification,” Castro and Coyle said, “It is advised that if a positive reaction with luminol is achieved, the stained area should be checked again with another reagent such as tetramethylbenzidine, phenolphthalein, or orthotolidine and always confirmed with a human-specific confirmatory test for blood [23].”

“Either luminol or fluorescein can be sprayed onto large surfaces such as walls or floors and the positive areas areas marked for further testing. Both tests are very sensitive and will indicate bloodstains that may not be visible…One disadvantage to these tests is that both can have false positive reactions. Luminol and fluorescein will react with the same false positives as PH [phenolphthalein] and also with bleach and other cleaning fluids, which may interfere with blood detection on surfaces that have been cleaned. For this reason fluorescein or luminol positive areas should be retested with one of the color change presumptive tests.”
The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice (Humana Press, 2006)
Chapter 1 Serology and DNA, by Lisa A. Gefrides, NS and Katherine E. Welch, MS

 

[Desert Fox]

Also Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife blade and on the cleaning rags, according to Sollecito's admission, then. If admissions is the probative method, it's game over for Knox and Sollecito.

Btw, I am was not only contending over the area of finding of Guede's DNA (where I am right and Kaosium was wrong, despite your self-defeating attempt to shift the goalpost), I was also disputing the "initial phase of investigation."

This one takes the cake. The quality of such comments are bringing the level of discussion on this board to a new low. Please do better. 3000 some posts and you let that one slip out.

Better yet, have him/her please provide a source for this

 

[Desert Fox]

Have you seen anything recently regarding the deterioration of Perugia? I read something a while back that had some rather alarming statistics, it said that many more students were now Chinese and one had OD'd which had led to less of those as well.

I rather think being the drug capitol of Italy and these deaths reflects rather poorly on the competency--and integrity--of their police force. I suspect my "The Wire" analogy may be more apt than I originally thought.

Such things tend to happen slowly, you don't tend to get such things happen.
Still I was a foreign student, would I want to be where I will be blamed for crime which occurs? Maybe that is the real truth here. . . .The whole case is blame the foreigner.

 

[Samson]

This is where the English idiom, "shifting the goalpost" may not be understandable to you.

The issue was, "Why is Rudy Guede's forensics all over the crime scene, when Amanda's and Raffaele's forensics are missing from the murder room?"

Let's keep the goalposts squarely there.

You took issue with this, trying to minimize the DNA-presence of Rudy.... implying that Rudy cannot be found "all over the crime scene."

Another poster reminded you of his pooh in the other toilet.

And I reminded you that Rudy himself admitted to being "all over the crime scene", the only one to admit to being in both bathrooms, the hallway connecting the three bedrooms, as well as admitting to being in the murderroom.

Against this, you pretty much ignored Rudy's own admissions.

You also made mention of the ktichen knife and Meredith's DNA - once again, to remind you, this was allegedly found in a non-existent striation on that knife blade, a striation no one else can see and which Stefanoni herself said could not be photographed. (Yet you say you've seen it in a photograph.)

Folks - this is the pro-guilt lobby at work. Ignore, shift, minimize, divert.

This reminds me of Mach

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.


"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

 

[Vibio]

Also Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife blade and on the cleaning rags, according to Sollecito's admission

Yes, there is not only the lab testing, but Raff's own adñmission:

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt . So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one."

Oooops. He didn't say...as any innocent person would: "There's no way her DNA could be on that knife..." or "They're trying to frame me....they went for the first knife they found....it's a set-up".

Nope... he created a whole detailed scene about why her DNA is in fact there.

It's almost as good as Knox's admission that she was involved in the murder:

"Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

Oooops.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, there is not only the lab testing, but Raff's own adñmission:

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt . So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one."

Oooops. He didn't say...as any innocent person would: "There's no way her DNA could be on that knife..." or "They're trying to frame me....they went for the first knife they found....it's a set-up".

Nope... he created a whole detailed scene about why her DNA is in fact there.

It's almost as good as Knox's admission that she was involved in the murder:

"Everything I have said in regards toin Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

When you are told by the authorities that somebody's DNA is where is should not be, you rationalize it. You try to come up with innocent explanations. Your first thoughts are not the authorities are complete boobs.

 

[Vibio]

When you are told by the authorities that somebody's DNA is where is should not be, you rationalize it. You try to come up with innocent explanations. Your first thoughts are not the authorities are complete boobs.

No, you're wrong.

Your explanation to your father would have been: "But... we were home all night". "Meredith has never been to my house". "They are trying to frame me" "Help!!!!!" "WTF!!!!!!!"

Besides: he didn't come up with an innocent explanation... he came up with a detailed, well thought-out humdinger of a lie.

 

[Desert Fox]

No, you're wrong.

Your explanation to your father would have been: "But... we were home all night". "Meredith has never been to my house". "They are trying to frame me" "Help!!!!!" "WTF!!!!!!!"

Besides: he didn't come up with an innocent explanation... he came up with a detailed humdinger of a lie.

The thing is that human memory is absolutely horrid. It is a virtual certainly that all of us remember events that never took place in our lives and we completely forget or alter events in our lives as well.

 

[moije2]

Better yet, have him/her please provide a source for this

No need. It was described above by another poster or two, and Vibio did the obligatory quoting. Now if Mr Context could own up to context in 3000 words or less. That these PG posters hang on stuff like this is a big big statement. Some of the abuse to logic - I think of it as a special category that I call mLogic - is amazing. There is ample proof here of arguing just to take a position. Not mature reflection, but more similar to a hired gun. It is hard to give credence to someone who can see no nuance, and give no criticism of the prosecution and various agencies. The past umpteen pages have been a little bit entertaining, but for this frequent lurker falling to the level of silliness too often.

I will not expect an intelligent or mature response to the "admissions" comment.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lawyer-client confidentiality

When you are told by the authorities that somebody's DNA is where is should not be, you rationalize it. You try to come up with innocent explanations. Your first thoughts are not the authorities are complete boobs.

Desert Fox,

If Raffaele had said, "It is not her DNA," would the PG commenters agree that it was not? That inconsistency is one of several reasons to dismiss this as among the silliest of the PG talking points. Another is that Raffaele's own explanation in his book makes good sense, which is something like this actually happened in the women's flat. And it is a great way to avoid talking about Stefanoni's inept and unethical work with respect to the knife.

But what really disturbs me is that the PG commenters love to talk about this, all the while ignoring that if the authorities had not temporarily confiscated the diary from his lawyer's hands, we would not even know about his musings. It was a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality.

 

[Desert Fox]

Desert Fox,

If Raffaele had said, "It is not her DNA," would the PG commenters agree that it was not? That inconsistency is one of several reasons to dismiss this as among the silliest of the PG talking points. Another is that Raffaele's own explanation in his book makes good sense, which is something like this actually happened in the women's flat. And it is a great way to avoid talking about Stefanoni's inept and unethical work with respect to the knife.

But what really disturbs me is that the PG commenters love to talk about this, all the while ignoring that if the authorities had not temporarily confiscated the diary from his lawyer's hands, we would not even know about his musings. It was a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality.

If he was a bit more susceptible, he might have actually believed that he had done it.

 

[kwill]

Nobody is able to put together a response with a pale resemblance of consistency to my points. This is the fact.

Clearly you believe this. It's quite hilarious, given the absurdity of your points.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, you're wrong.

Your explanation to your father would have been: "But... we were home all night". "Meredith has never been to my house". "They are trying to frame me" "Help!!!!!" "WTF!!!!!!!"

Besides: he didn't come up with an innocent explanation... he came up with a detailed, well thought-out humdinger of a lie.

Man oh man. If it were not for the pro-guilt lobby and their exaggerations....

It was a diary entry, not meant for anyone except for him. The man was being told that Meredith's DNA on the knife was iron clad.

Can we get copies of your diaries to see how you react to information you are told, where you have no idea the truth of the issue?

But there's no factoid from the pro-guilt lobby that is immune from exaggeration:

- detailed
- well thought-out
- humdinger
- lie​

It's just possible that these "excesses of rhetoric" are meant to cover that there really is not much evidence at all otherwise.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is not true, LJ. There is first of all no "two part" TMB tests, all tests involve a preparation set made of TMB and an oxidant. The mixture can be manual or already prepared in some dry mixture or wafer like in Hemastix (what you call two steps, is in fact just a manual preparation).
But even in the best mist sensitive version, TMB is still regarded by authors ad being at least 5 times less sensitive than luminol.
There is no ground to call one version of TMB "proper" as opposed to others, such alleged hierarchy of legitimate vs. improper TMB tests is something you made up.
However that limit is theoretical, because TMB is an indirect test and this is the reason why it becomes much less sensitive in the practice use.
Moreover TMB sensitivity it's sensitivity is lowered by the fact that very time sensitive protocols are employed for the reading. This is a basic difference from luminol, in which you have an immediate glowing and you can spray again. In TMB the reading of the colour change must be within 60 seconds, if the reaction is slower the samples are read as negative.
And yet, all this is still not relevant, since the only relevant test (type or version of TMB test performed) the only one useful for comparison, would be the one that was actually performed; the reference is not the theoretical properties of this or that laboratory test.
And given that TMB is not only less sensitive, but also less specific (don't forget that) and also has the same false positives of luminol (don't forget that), what happens is that TMB brings no additional information, unless you are able to indicate an alternative substance that would have the property of reacting with luminol and not with TMB.

I'm afraid I'm at a total loss in trying to respond to posts such as this one. It's such a breathtaking mixture of dissembling, misrepresentation and flat-out chutzpah that it's truly near-impossible to address it.

But for the record, here are the facts on this issue (all of which have been shown in easy-to-understand and referenced forms to Machiavelli several times now, but which for some utterly bizarre reason he continues to stick his fingers in his ears about):

1. There are two fundamentally differing types of the TMB test.

2. Both types use TMB and a peroxide, but the difference is the timings with which these two chemicals are applied.

3. In the first type (eg Hemastix), the TMB and peroxide is contained together on the stick. Therefore it's impossible to tell whether the substance being tested has reacted to the TMB alone, or to the TMB plus peroxide.

4. In the second type, the TMB and peroxide are applied in two separate (in time) processes. It's therefore possible to tell whether the substance has reacted to the TMB alone, or to the TMB plus peroxide.

5. This is a critical difference, since a reaction to TMB alone indicates a substance other than blood, while no reaction to TMB alone but a reaction to TMB plus peroxide indicates the presumptive presence of blood.

6. Therefore the second type of TMB test is hugely more specific for blood than the first type. And this second type of TMB test (the two-part test) is hugely more specific for blood than is Luminol.

7. The two-part TMB test is slightly less sensitive (in the non-statistical sense of dilution ratios) than Luminol, but its large increase in specificity much more than compensates for this, and the two-part TMB test is easily sensitive enough for pretty much all field samples (including, by a massive margin, nearly all the samples related to the Kercher murder).

8. All of the above is precisely why competent forensic scientists use Luminol as a quick in-field test for possible blood over a wide area, but when they get a Luminol positive, they then move on to a two-part TMB test on those areas showing a positive Luminol reaction. In this way, they can tell with far higher confidence whether these areas actually contain blood (as opposed to the many substances that cause a Luminol positive but a 2-part TMB negative).

9. All of the above is amply documented in the standard operating procedures for competent forensics teams. The proper procedure is firstly to do a quick-and-dirty test (usually either Luminol or Hemastix combined TMB sticks), then if that test shows a positive they should move on to the proper 2-part TMB test. If the proper 2-part TMB test shows negative for blood (i.e. positive to TMB alone but negative to TMB plus peroxide), then the substance is not blood and no further testing is necessary. If the proper 2-part TMB test shows positive for blood (i.e. negative to TMB alone but positive to TMB plus peroxide) then the substance can be presumed to be blood. If so, then the next step is to perform a confirmatory test for blood, and usually a DNA test as well.


I have to say, it's strange, disconcerting and rather laughable to witness the argument equivalent of "Lalalalala no, the Sun rotates around the Earth Lalalalalalala"............

 

[Planigale]

The Knoxians claim that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Knox to have been in the room where the murder took place because in the areas tested there was none of her DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints. So, it's IMPOSSIBLE for her to have been there.

Well no, it's not impossible and the Latko trial is another example. 20 stab wounds... 2 throats slit: yet no DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints where found.

Impossible is irrelevant. The operative term is reasonable doubt, does the presence of DNA, shoe prints, handprints of Guede, and the lack of any evidence of Knox introduce reasonable doubt of her presence? What is reasonable doubt? It does not mean that the defence have to prove that for certain that Knox was not present. All that has to be shown is that there is a small but reasonable likelihood that she was not present. The defence does not even need to show it is more likely than not she was not present, they just have to show there is an alternative with a small but significant possibility of her absence. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It is worth comparing the strength of the evidence against Guede, the hand print in blood in MK room identifies him and places him at the murder in time and place. No suspect DNA needed. No doubtful assumptions drawn from contradictory and dubious witnesses. Where is the evidence that places Knox as being present at the time and place of the murder?



In the example you gave was there copious evidence of another individual? or was there a lack of evidence of anyone? Unless the former the comparison is unhelpful.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

All are "legitimate" sources, including Sfarzo.
But Frank Sfarzo used to take money from the Knox family and supporters, he was accused to be a liar and a dishonest by some people you do trust and his reports are proven false.
...

Now, the Mobile Squad instead. Some may like to assume soem of the police officers are not that angels, they may have committed offences, etc. But this is not something from which you can deduce that a conspiracy theory could make sense. Because you don't need just some few cops who are ready to break the law. You can't go much further with Napoleoni's intemperance. You would need a pre-planned and/or systematic conspiracy performed on a wider scale, by entire offices (not just one) and on a much higher level, and with evidence convincing, compelling motives, in order to manifacture evidence on a murder case like this one. You would need a whole conspiracy theory which looks immediately unproven and unrealistic. And also, what evidence, after all?
Had they decided to manufacture evidence, why don't manufacture phisical evidence on a massive scale. If they had the capability and the will to manufacture such a technical piece of evidence like the kitchen knife, this means they could much more easilly have placed flocks of the victim's DNA wherever they wanted to; they could have placed massive easy-to-produce evidence. The whole conspiracy theory stands out immediately as inconsistent and nonsens when you try to fit these aspects in.
Not to speak about the fact that DNA evidence is unnecessary in this case.

Moreover, the truth is that the various officers of Mobile Squad are not my sources"; my 'sources' instead include Mignini and Anna Donnino, as well as Patrizia Stefanoni. You can't put the word of an anti-mafia prosecutor on the same scale of a girl who says the only truth is she doesn't know what the truth is, or defendants who had no clue of what they were doing the night before.

I wasn't referring to manufacturing evidence but rather the breaking of the law some of them did unrelated to this case. For instance, wasn't someone convicted of some kind of abuse of office - - for obtaining confidential information for their own benefit in a divorce case or custody battle or something? A few of them have had instances of less-than-stellar behavior outside of this case. That's what I was referring to.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm afraid I'm at a total loss in trying to respond to posts such as this one. It's such a breathtaking mixture of dissembling, misrepresentation and flat-out chutzpah that it's truly near-impossible to address it.

But for the record, here are the facts on this issue (all of which have been shown in easy-to-understand and referenced forms to Machiavelli several times now, but which for some utterly bizarre reason he continues to stick his fingers in his ears about):

1. There are two fundamentally differing types of the TMB test.

2. Both types use TMB and a peroxide, but the difference is the timings with which these two chemicals are applied.

3. In the first type (eg Hemastix), the TMB and peroxide is contained together on the stick. Therefore it's impossible to tell whether the substance being tested has reacted to the TMB alone, or to the TMB plus peroxide.

4. In the second type, the TMB and peroxide are applied in two separate (in time) processes. It's therefore possible to tell whether the substance has reacted to the TMB alone, or to the TMB plus peroxide.

5. This is a critical difference, since a reaction to TMB alone indicates a substance other than blood, while no reaction to TMB alone but a reaction to TMB plus peroxide indicates the presumptive presence of blood.

6. Therefore the second type of TMB test is hugely more specific for blood than the first type. And this second type of TMB test (the two-part test) is hugely more specific for blood than is Luminol.

7. The two-part TMB test is slightly less sensitive (in the non-statistical sense of dilution ratios) than Luminol, but its large increase in specificity much more than compensates for this, and the two-part TMB test is easily sensitive enough for pretty much all field samples (including, by a massive margin, nearly all the samples related to the Kercher murder).

8. All of the above is precisely why competent forensic scientists use Luminol as a quick in-field test for possible blood over a wide area, but when they get a Luminol positive, they then move on to a two-part TMB test on those areas showing a positive Luminol reaction. In this way, they can tell with far higher confidence whether these areas actually contain blood (as opposed to the many substances that cause a Luminol positive but a 2-part TMB negative).

9. All of the above is amply documented in the standard operating procedures for competent forensics teams. The proper procedure is firstly to do a quick-and-dirty test (usually either Luminol or Hemastix combined TMB sticks), then if that test shows a positive they should move on to the proper 2-part TMB test. If the proper 2-part TMB test shows negative for blood (i.e. positive to TMB alone but negative to TMB plus peroxide), then the substance is not blood and no further testing is necessary. If the proper 2-part TMB test shows positive for blood (i.e. negative to TMB alone but positive to TMB plus peroxide) then the substance can be presumed to be blood. If so, then the next step is to perform a confirmatory test for blood, and usually a DNA test as well.


I have to say, it's strange, disconcerting and rather laughable to witness the argument equivalent of "Lalalalala no, the Sun rotates around the Earth Lalalalalalala"............

I'm afraid it's why it's called the proguilt lobby.

These good folk are not even trying to describe a crime, much less provide a detailed timeline or any such thing.

These folk are in sales.

 

[Bill Williams]

I wasn't referring to manufacturing evidence but rather the breaking of the law some of them did unrelated to this case. For instance, wasn't someone convicted of some kind of abuse of office - - for obtaining confidential information for their own benefit in a divorce case or custody battle or something? A few of them have had instances of less-than-stellar behavior outside of this case. That's what I was referring to.

Read Machiavelli's criteria carefully. He put the bar at "being accused of being a liar."

In that case, Giuliano Mignini has been accused of being a lot of things, too, and was even taken to trial. The jaw dropper is that Mignini was provisionally convicted of one of his crimes when he prosecuted this case in 2009 and 2011.

By Machiavelli's double standards, that would have meant discredit to Mignini and disqualified him. Oh wait. It didn't.

 

[Vibio]

Man oh man. If it were not for the pro-guilt lobby and their exaggerations....

Man oh man... the squirming and tortured explanations from the Cult of the Amandites....

 

[Desert Fox]

No need. It was described above by another poster or two, and Vibio did the obligatory quoting. Now if Mr Context could own up to context in 3000 words or less. That these PG posters hang on stuff like this is a big big statement. Some of the abuse to logic - I think of it as a special category that I call mLogic - is amazing. There is ample proof here of arguing just to take a position. Not mature reflection, but more similar to a hired gun. It is hard to give credence to someone who can see no nuance, and give no criticism of the prosecution and various agencies. The past umpteen pages have been a little bit entertaining, but for this frequent lurker falling to the level of silliness too often.

I will not expect an intelligent or mature response to the "admissions" comment.

My issue is that I never read that Meredeth's DNA was found on cleaning rags?