I think what we have here is an example of vocabulary conflict.
1. To scientists, "appears" means "seems that way but may or may not be the best model of reality". For example, the statement "the sun appears to move around the earth each day" is true. The better model of reality is that the earth rotates about its axis each day. "Appears" does not mean "is".
2. To scientists, "suggesting" means "consistent with, but there may or may not be other, perhaps even better explanations". It does not mean "is".
3. It clearly is an attempt to provide hypotheses, that if true, would support the proposition that the blood traces are not cat blood and were in fact left by Guede.
4. I believe (meaning I am not certain) that I have seen some of those pictures of blood droplets on the stairs. I haven't looked for a long time and I have never attempted to analyze them.
5. I don't immediately have a source and it doesn't matter to me. If true, it only adds support to my view that analysis of the online photos, rather than of the actual evidence, is not necessarily fruitful. But some are entertained by such analysis and sometimes possibly valid information is found by such analysis.
6. There was a cover-up of the source of the blood downstairs. That is undeniable. The human DNA profiles obtained from the downstairs blood was never shown to the defense by the prosecution; that is a cover-by definition. That does not mean that the DNA profiles obtained were necessarily those of Guede or of Kercher, who each were the sources of DNA in the upstairs flat, or that the downstairs DNA profiles were necessarily relevant to the murder/rape of Kercher.
But it sure is suspicious, especially since much relevant and potentially exculpatory (to Knox and Sollecito) evidence was suppressed. Recall that among the suppressed or intentionally ignored evidence were the following: 1) the DNA profile and thus the identity of the male who deposited the apparent semen stain on the pillow found under Kercher; 2) the full results of the rape kit; 3) almost all the DNA profile controls (negative and positive) which are required in order to fully evaluate the possible extent of contamination in a DNA forensic lab; 4) the machine-generated DNA profiles of each and every profile including controls, which are likewise required to fully understand the results and the possible extent of contamination; 5) the reasons for one or more gaps in the sequential numbering of key DNA specimens, which suggest that there were suppressed initial DNA tests that were then repeated.
7. Hypotheses often come before evidence is gathered. A reasonable hypothesis is one that is not inconsistent with well-accepted prior information. Unreasonable hypotheses are not necessarily incorrect, but often may be incorrect. The problem with these some of these hypotheses about the downstairs blood traces is that they may not be adequately testable with the available online information.
8. The defense had to be careful what it went after and how it went after information. The defense had to give priority to finding the most important information. Lawyers in Italy can be accused of calunnia if they appear to accuse authorities of misconduct, even in court.
9. I don't see much point to continuing the discussion on the issue of the blood traces downstairs. I think readers here should understand that the expression of suspicion about the actions (or inactions) of authorities who have demonstrated misconduct, such as for example suppressing DNA profile test raw data, is not to be considered a "conspiracy theory". It is more an exploration of the possible extent of the misconduct.
Oh, Vix....learn when to quit.
