Shocking!!!
It has already been pointed out that bleach will only react with luminol for up to eight hours after application. And in any case:
Not true. This is dependant on the type of bleach and the circumstances e.g. temperature, light exposure. See for instance
http://www.solvaychemicals.com/Chem...rinated_inorganics/PCH-1400-0007-W-EN_WW_.pdf Hypochlorite solutions may be reactive much longer than hours.
if a crime scene is thoroughly cleaned with a bleach solution, residual cleaner will cause the
entire crime scene to produce the typical blue glow, effectively camouflaging any organic evidence, such as blood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol
---------
Not true. Only the areas with bleach on them will cause Luminol to fluoresce.
Secondly the luminol tests carried out by the Scientific Police 18th Dec 2007 highlighted several footprints of Amanda's and Raf's genetic DNA. Remember, luminol reacts with the iron elements in haemoglobin, causing it to momentarily glow in the dark, allowing police to take night photography of the phenomenon.
Not true. There are no footprints of Sollecito identified by Luminol or otherwise. The only DNA of Sollecito from the flat was on the cigarette butt and on the bra fastener. There are no footprints identified as belonging to Knox. There are Luminol positive marks that have no identifying characteristics that swabs identified Knox's DNA as present.
Amanda did have a long welt on her neck, more like a scratch - her own knife turned on herself?! - and her lower earring, of several, appears to have been ripped off. Raf's face in the shots outside the cottage, where the pair were canoodling, shows a nasty graze across his chin.
All highlighted above untrue. Do you even know what a welt is? Please specify the length, long is very subjective. There was no welt documented. There is no rip in Knox's ear. Please evidence the graze, why is it nasty?
There are actually few traces of Rudy's DNA beyond that found on the body, bag and pillowcase.
Agree APART from those found on the victim's body and possessions there are few traces of Guede's DNA.
The defence scientists themselves argued the bloody footprint was too undistiguished to identify it.
Agree
Police said it was size 42 (Raf's size), whereas Rudy's is 45.
These are shoe sizes not foot sizes. What competence do the police have in this issue? Perhaps you refer to the fingerprint officers who were working in a private capacity for which they were paid by the prosecution, who used discredited methodology?
There was a blond hair found gripped in Mez' hand, another in her vagina and one across her bag.
Please see previous references on correct forensic analysis of hairs (never carried out by the police forensic service). Without proper analysis we do not know if these fibres were hairs (as opposed to e.g. nylon fibre), human hairs (as opposed to e.g. wool).
There was a ladies size 37 footprint in blood
Untrue. Size 37 is a shoe size. Do you refer to a shoe print or a foot print?
There was a shard of glass from Filomena's room. As Rudy had long fled and the burglary was staged post-murder,
Untrue there is no evidence the burglary was staged.
it likely came from Amanda, who left a footprint on a card under Filomena's window,
Untrue
plus two mixed traces of her and Mez, in that room. There is no DNA trace of Rudy in Filomena's room, or small bathroom. IIRC papers were scattered around to give the burglary scene "credibility". Whoops! Amanda left her footprint on one of the cards!
Why is there no DNA trace of Filomena in her own room? Rudy admits to going into Filomena's room. Why should he have left DNA if he broke in as he likely wore gloves? There is no footprint or do you mean shoe print of Knox.
There was a bloody fingerprint on the small bathroom lightswitch (Amanda's) depressed down, indicating it was dark at the time,
Not true. There is no fingerprint of Knox in blood. In any case with an internal bathroom one would need to switch the light on (and off) day and night.
together with Amanda's blood on the tap and in the bidet, left on or around 1/2 November 2007, proving her physical presence at the scene as of the time of the murder.
Not true. There was no blood of Knox in the bidet. You are right with regards to the blood on the tap / faucet. There is no time stamp with regards to the blood deposition. There are certainly many none criminal reasons for a resident to leave blood spots in their own bathroom. It certainly cannot prove her presence at the time of the murder.
Police found all together five mixed DNA of Amanda and Mez, but none mixed with any of the other flat mates.
Were any DNA samples of the other flat mates or Kercher's boy friend found? Why not?
Raff's fingerprint was on the inside of Mez' door and also in Laura's room,
Not true.
Not true, although his DNA mixed with Knox's DNA was. Smoking is not yet a crime in Italy.
Phone records show Amanda was not at Raff's all evening, as claimed.
Not true
Her text to Patrick was from nearby or at the cottage.
Since this was sent prior to Kercher's arrival at the cottage what is the relevance. In any case the data is compatible with being sent from Sollecito's. Also have to match with the eye witness testimony as to Knox being present at Sollecito's.
Raff's PC was not in use from after the pair downloaded 'Amelie'. A manga cartoon auto-started afterwards. Both phones were switched off 8:45pm-ish. Raff's was not switched back on until 5:30am-ish, and the computer circa the same time, to play some grunge rock. (I myself used to play Motorhead's Ace of Spades or Adam & the Ants Prince Charming at top volume #11 a la Spinal Tap, to celebrate passing any particularly tough accountancy exam.)*
This would be the computer hard drive damaged by the police? There is no way to know if a phone is switched off as opposed to being out of contact with a base station. Equally there is no way to know if a phone is switched on as opposed to coming within a base station range. Adam Ant is not grunge rock.
The tedious soundbite, there is no trace of Amanda or Raf at the crime scene, is laughable.
I am here to kill ignorance!
But you knew all of this anyway.
*ETA Numerous witnesses, including police, testified Amanda was in a highly euphoric condition immediately after the murder. For example, in the questura, the lingerie shop, diary entries, etc.
You appear to demonstrate a great deal of ignorance. Your 'evidence' is all false. E.g. what lingerie shop?
