Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[SpitfireIX]

Let me explain.

Vixensplaining. (h/t @JayUtah)

Inmates are not 'jealous' of persons incarcerated because of a horrendous and heinous crime; such an inmate is reviled as infamous.

The correct word is not 'jealous' or 'famous'; the correct words are 'reviled', and as an 'infamous' sex killer of a lovely young English woman innocently studying for her class the next day.

Amanda was put in general population at the beginning of the trial; she had not yet been convicted. Further, she put the word "famous" in quotation marks, and made it clear that she wished all the attention would just go away.

If you are still not sure, do you think Bryan Kohberger's fellow inmates are 'jealous' of him because he is 'famous', or is he 'reviled because he is 'infamous'? (Yes, and apparently even Kohberger has his fans! I suspect they even call him 'Bryan' affectionately and despise Judge Hippler for obviously, making him stay in jail and persecuting the poor innocent dear with the threat of the death penalty. Hippler is such a bastard - just like Mignini was to AK! Bah! Dontcha just hate Kohberger's haters!)

I doubt Kohberger's fellow inmates much care about his reputation, as the case hasn't gotten anything like the same kind of press coverage that Meredith's murder did, even in Idaho. The reason is quite simple; Kohberger isn't anything like Amanda. "PSYCHOPATH MURDERS 4 JUST FOR KICKS" doesn't sell nearly as well as "FEMME FATALE MASTERMINDS MURDER OF ROOMMATE OUT OF JEALOUSY."

Further, Kohberger, like Amanda at the point she was placed in general population, has yet to be convicted, so he is entitled to the hilited presumption.

 

[Stacyhs]

There's an entire list of instances where the police fed the media lies and speculation against Amanda for the sole purpose of turning the public against her. Unfortunately, since lay jurors are not sequestered in Italy, they were bombarded by all of those lies and speculation for two years before convicting her. In the US, we allow trials to be moved to different locations to avoid negative media coverage and get a fair trial. That was not an option for Amanda.

What's interesting is the genesis for the discussion was these comments from Vixen;

Do you think it ethical for Knox' friends and family to get newspapers to claim the prosecutor of Knox was 'mentally unbalanced' during a live case? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Or do you think trying a serious murder/rape case - as in the Kercher case - outside of court via tabloid newspapers and PR agencies upholds the principle of the rule of law - i.e., in a criminal court of law only, and by means of a fair trial?

I have since repeatedly provided Vixen examples where the prosecution fed the media lies and speculation, and that this amounted to a PR campaign against Amanda. She asked for examples, so I listed some, including the pink bathroom picture and the DM article about her noisy party citation. I'm not sure if everyone read the article, but it was a complete fabrication. Despite that, she came back with this;

The DAILY MAIL article is a factual account of Knox having received a ticket for anti-social partying. How is that untrue? Given the trial was being held in Italy, there was no subjudice on UK newspapers reporting this, as it wouldn't prejudice a trial in another country's jurisdiction.

It wasn't a factual account, and I listed over a half dozen fallacies in the article, and I also pointed out that Mignini referenced that specific article in court. She's never acknowledged she was wrong about the article, wrong about the prosecution being the one waging a PR campaign, and wrong that what's written in the foreign media absolutely can influence a trial.

REALLY? I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tells ya!

 

[Stacyhs]

Are you saying that they already planned to murder Meredith even before they left Raffaele's apartment?

According to Vixen, immediately after learning she didn't have to go to work and Raffaele learned he didn't have to take Jovana (the liar!) to the station later, the two decided pick up a guy AK had met very casually twice and Raffaele had never met, and go kill her roommate of 6 weeks. Yep, she's having the time of her life in Italy but all she could think of was killing her roommate because.....because...

was done by the police, as has been explained to you numerous times.

Now, now, just because the police admitted and the courts found the laptops were destroyed while in police custody and someone surfed RS's laptop while he was in police custody doesn't PROVE RS didn't destroy them!

 

[Reformed Offlian]

How does intentionally leading the police to Guede COVER for him? If she were guilty, why would she want to hand the police the man who could identify her? That's a moronic explanation.

"It wasn't me! It was my co-conspirator!"

 

[Numbers]

The expectation is that if you are going to claim 'contamination' you need to present a plausible path of how that contamination got there specific to the scenario. Otherwise any criminal can claim 'contamination' without proper proof or testing. Hellmann was criticised for saying, 'Anything is possible', using a piece-meal method of evidence testing and failing to explain why he appointed new expert witnesses at all. As the next merits court via Nencini Appeal pointed out, C&V's report was riddled with so-called 'US standards', clearly written by AK advocates in the US, when C&V were supposed to be independent. They were very obviously bent, as was Hellmann.

Vixen's first statement in the post is wrong as a point of international (ECHR) law as well as of Italian law for the claim that the defense must present some specific proof or evidence for how a test specimen was contaminated.* For the second point, regarding the origin of the standards for DNA forensic testing, the fundamental standards are agreed by international forensic organizations.**

* Under Italian law, CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, the judge must declare an acquittal if the proof that the accused committed the crime is missing, insufficient, or contradictory. If the crucial DNA evidence that is the only possible incriminating evidence is contaminated, then that alleged DNA evidence is not credible evidence against anyone, and the accused must be acquitted according to the law. A similar conclusion results from considering CPP Article 533, which requires that an accused may only be convicted if that person's guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the fact that the DNA evidence is contaminated, as shown by the results of the sample or the controls, that is important; the way that the contamination occurred is not important for the criminal judgment, but is a concern for the testing lab.

For the ECHR, the case law on presumption of innocence includes the following:

Article 6 § 2 requires, inter alia [among other things], that: (1) when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; (2) the burden of proof is on the prosecution; and (3) any doubt should benefit the accused.... [inline citation omitted]

See:

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/presumption-of-innocence

The above case law thus requires: 1. The prosecution must prove its case, and therefore must show that, for example, forensic DNA profile testing was free from contamination; 2. If there is a doubt about the key evidence, such as is the case if DNA test profiles show contamination, then that doubt favors the defense - the doubtful evidence cannot be used against the accused.

** ENFSI - the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes - creates DNA forensic test standards for Europe. European forensic labs also must follow ISO (International Standards Organization) protocols and standards to achieve credible results. Here's a paragraph from an ENFSI document on the minimization of contamination in DNA labs:

Due to the sensitivity of DNA analysis methods, DNA contamination risks need to be minimized and contamination monitored and managed.
This Guideline outlines the general principles and recommendations pertinent to the minimization of DNA contamination of items received, handled and analysed in the DNA laboratory in order to preserve the integrity of the items and the results. This is intended to prevent the consequences of reporting erroneous data attributed to contamination incidents. In this Guideline the term “should” is used to indicate good practice and “shall” to indicate a strong recommendation. The word “shall” is also used where it relates to the accreditation requirements of the ISO 17025 Quality Assurance Standard.

See:

https://enfsi.eu/about-enfsi/structure/working-groups/documents-page/documents/best-practice-manuals/

 

[SpitfireIX]

There were two long blond hairs. One clasped in rigor mortis by the victim's hand. Another long strand across Mez' bag.

Amanda was a brunette.

Knox' table lamp on the floor beneath Mez' bed . . .

Proves exactly nothing.

. . . and a ladies size 37 ACSIS stamped in blood on the pillow.

Is actually a partial print from Rudy's shoe.

Knox is size 37.

No. Her shoe size was 39. She mentions that when she was first taken to Cappane, when she was being issued prison clothes, she stated her shoe size as 39.

In addition, only AK would have the key to Mez door to lock her in, being the only other person home.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, Meredith had keys to her own door. Rudy obviously got in her purse, so he could have gotten the keys from there.

Please don't argue that it is OK to kill your room mate 'because AK lives there, so all mixed DNA and footprints in blood should be disregarded'.

 

[SpitfireIX]

"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"

What Stacy said.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The 'alternative' idea that AK and RS were padding around barefoot in fruit juice is a real left-field long-shot nice-try desperate attempt at defelcting suspicion!

There were no footprints found that could be identified as Raffaele's, obvious errors by the prosecution's investigators and your guilter fantasies notwithstanding. And the footprints claimed to be Amanda's tested negative both for blood and for Meredith's DNA.

Given there was blood all over the floor, as reported by Guede, who in his earliest statement - I believe via FB to Benedetti - says that he didn't know how AK managed to sleep in the apartment, as the entire hallway was covered in blood.

Uncorroborated "accomplice" testimony. To quote district attorney Adam Schiff from Law & Order, "That and $1.25 gets you on the subway."

Further, Rudy also initially said that Amanda had nothing to do with the murder. Funny how you're never interested in taking that statement at face value.

You note whoever cleaned up, made sure to leave signs of RG's shoe prints, albeit only one set. Unfortunately, this backfired for the phantom cleaners, as RG's shoeprints show him heading out of Mez' room straight for the front door on his way out. No stopping to lock Mez' door or pull it to, for which he'd need to face the door. But we do see both AK's and RS's footprints highlighted by luminol facing Mez' door. Interestingly, there are no footprints of RS leading up to the bathmat, where his footprint is identified - and he has a very characteristic hammer toe -so maybe that is why AK was carefully scooting around on a towel between the bathroom and her room (she claims) after taking a shower (she claims) on the morning of the 2 Nov 2007, the morning after the murder.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[SpitfireIX]

If using the term 'mansplain' is heavily punishable by the mods, please explain why invoking Salem witch trials is acceptable just because the murder suspect was female? Are you seriously claiming accusing a female of murder is 'witch hunting'?

Just to add to what the others who've called out the absurdity of your faux indignation have written, you did know that five of the 19 "witches" who were hanged were men, and a sixth man was tortured to death because he refused to plead to the charges, didn't you? J/k, of course you didn't know that, because you just pulled your response out of an orifice, as usual.

 

[Planigale]

Amanda was a brunette.


Proves exactly nothing.


Is actually a partial print from Rudy's shoe.


No. Her shoe size was 39. She mentions that when she was first taken to Cappane, when she was being issued prison clothes, she stated her shoe size as 39.


As has been repeatedly explained to you, Meredith had keys to her own door. Rudy obviously got in her purse, so he could have gotten the keys from there.

A lot of people if they just got in, and unlocked the door to their bedroom would leave the keys dangling in the door whilst they sorted out their bags etc. Kercher may have put the keys in her bag, they may have been dangling in the door.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You got called out for mischaracterizing what she wrote and have no better rebuttal than another mischaracterization.

I didn't catch it until I reread it a few times, but that's supposed to be a joke. It's a line from a movie. Say it three times fast. And see here.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Thanks for the insinuation that I'm sexist, though. Good luck making that one convincing.

I really didn't think she'd go there in this thread, even though she has in others, because there are almost always at least one or two other women around who'd call BS. I guess I should have known better.

 

[Disbelief]

It has become a predictable occurrence for supporters of convicted female killers to claim they are victims of witch hunts.

Let's avoid trite clichés.




.

And this comment has ◊◊◊◊ all nothing to do with my post. By the way, we are not discussing a convicted female killer in this thread.

 

[SpitfireIX]

A lot of people if they just got in, and unlocked the door to their bedroom would leave the keys dangling in the door whilst they sorted out their bags etc. Kercher may have put the keys in her bag, they may have been dangling in the door.

i had thought of this, but someone had mentioned that Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door. However, I just got Waiting to Be Heard from the library, and Amanda states, on p. 71 (hardback), that she told the Postal Police that Meredith only locked her door when she was changing clothes or out of town for the weekend, and then Filomena interrupted, clearly agitated, to say that Meredith never locked her door, and to demand that the police break it down.

I would say that Amanda is more likely to have been correct on this point. Filomena may well have assumed, just because she'd never known of Meredith's locking her door (in the relatively short time they'd been housemates) that she never did. However, Amanda could well have knocked at least once, and Meredith might have responded, "Just a minute! I'm changing!" (or whatever a young English woman of that time would have said in such circumstances), and then Amanda could have heard the door being unlocked before Meredith opened it. Amanda might also have actually observed Meredith lock her door before she left for the weekend.

Finally, it's possible that Meredith had recently started locking her door, or locking it more frequently, when she was away, but neither Amanda nor Filomena were aware of this. Possibly someone had suggested to her that she do this, or she might have gotten the idea on her own, such as from hearing about a break-in in the area.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, even though Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door, we still can't exclude the possibility that Rudy could have found her keys in the lock.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda was a brunette.


Proves exactly nothing.


Is actually a partial print from Rudy's shoe.


No. Her shoe size was 39. She mentions that when she was first taken to Cappane, when she was being issued prison clothes, she stated her shoe size as 39.


As has been repeatedly explained to you, Meredith had keys to her own door. Rudy obviously got in her purse, so he could have gotten the keys from there.

Now you are making up your own evidence.


.

 

[Vixen]

There were no footprints found that could be identified as Raffaele's, obvious errors by the prosecution's investigators and your guilter fantasies notwithstanding. And the footprints claimed to be Amanda's tested negative both for blood and for Meredith's DNA.


Uncorroborated "accomplice" testimony. To quote district attorney Adam Schiff from Law & Order, "That and $1.25 gets you on the subway."

Further, Rudy also initially said that Amanda had nothing to do with the murder. Funny how you're never interested in taking that statement at face value.


Assumes facts not in evidence.

Complete nonsense.


.

 

[Vixen]

Just to add to what the others who've called out the absurdity of your faux indignation have written, you did know that five of the 19 "witches" who were hanged were men, and a sixth man was tortured to death because he refused to plead to the charges, didn't you? J/k, of course you didn't know that, because you just pulled your response out of an orifice, as usual.

How is this relevant? A poster brought up Salem to portray their belief AK was witch hunted by Mignini, without offering any proof whatsoever but hoping to be taken at face value. Please don't be disingenuous and claim the poster wasn't referring to AK's sex.



.



.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Now you are making up your own evidence.

What evidence did I make up? Be specific.

 

[Vixen]

i had thought of this, but someone had mentioned that Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door. However, I just got Waiting to Be Heard from the library, and Amanda states, on p. 71 (hardback), that she told the Postal Police that Meredith only locked her door when she was changing clothes or out of town for the weekend, and then Filomena interrupted, clearly agitated, to say that Meredith never locked her door, and to demand that the police break it down.

I would say that Amanda is more likely to have been correct on this point. Filomena may well have assumed, just because she'd never known of Meredith's locking her door (in the relatively short time they'd been housemates) that she never did. However, Amanda could well have knocked at least once, and Meredith might have responded, "Just a minute! I'm changing!" (or whatever a young English woman of that time would have said in such circumstances), and then Amanda could have heard the door being unlocked before Meredith opened it. Amanda might also have actually observed Meredith lock her door before she left for the weekend.

Finally, it's possible that Meredith had recently started locking her door, or locking it more frequently, when she was away, but neither Amanda nor Filomena were aware of this. Possibly someone had suggested to her that she do this, or she might have gotten the idea on her own, such as from hearing about a break-in in the area.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, even though Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door, we still can't exclude the possibility that Rudy could have found her keys in the lock.

I should take what AK puts in her words to portray herself as a victim of Italy's legal system with a huge pinch of salt. As Filomena, said, Mez never locked her door. Why do you think she immediately contradicted Knox' claim? The only time she locked her door was when she went to visit her family in England, which makes perfect sense. How does AK know she locked her door when changing unless AK rattled her door without knocking?

Giancarlo Massei didn't believe her story and actually leaned in during the trial to ask her a question personally about it. Here's the exchange:

GCM - Giancarlo Massei; GM - Guiliano Mignini

GM:

You don't remember. So. Listen, another question. Do you remember, on the morning of the 2nd, if Raffaele tried to break down the door of the room?

AK:

Yes.

GM:

How then, when later Romanelli arrived, you said that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door. Yet you tried to break it down. Can you explain this?

AK:

Certainly. When the police came they asked, at least they asked Filomena, if that door was ever locked, and she said "No no no no, it's never, never locked." I said "No, that's not true that it's really never locked," because sometimes it actually was locked. But for me, it was strange that it was locked and she wasn't answering, so for me it was strange, but I wanted to explain that it wasn't impossible, that she did lock her door now and then.

GM:

But usually, you remember her door being open.

AK:

Yes it was usually open or at least...yes.

GM:

But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal.

AK:

I never said it was always locked. It's just that they didn't understand. I just wanted to explain that it was not always open.

GM:

I see, you didn't explain properly.

GCM:

The pubblico ministero is asking you: okay, you say it was not always open, not always closed, but it was a circumstance which didn't particularly alarm you, so much so that you even said this to Romanelli.

AK:

Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--



GCM: Okay, okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn't alarm you, whereas in fact Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So?



AK: Well, I was worried because she wasn't answering. The fact that the door was locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and she isn't well or something.



GCM: Yes, but per carita, still on this circumstance. A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there.


AK:

Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

GCM:

--and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left. She's not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she's not there.

AK:

I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the house--

GCM:

No, excuse me. Per carita. After this, the other party will continue the examination. I want to say: you find the main door open, you can think that she left and forgot to close it, but she locked her own door. Why should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this is what the pubblico ministero is asking. There. If you could explain why you were so worried in relation to your knowledge. Your motive for trying to break down the door.

AK:

Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there, I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried. So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there. I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that.

And here's how AK tried to explain away her missing lamp.

GM:

Now, another question. You told us before, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now, I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn't by any chance try to break down the door to get back the lamp we talked about?

AK:

[perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn't know the lamp was in there.

GM:

You didn't know that your lamp was in there?

AK:

In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn't even noticed it was missing. I tried--

GM:

You didn't see that it was missing?

AK:

No, I didn't see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked. I was thinking, Good Lord, what's going on here? I ran downstairs to see if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside. She locked her door when she needed "privacy" [English]. So if she wasn't in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact that the window was broken worried me. It wasn't to get something.


FM:

In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?

AK:

There was one but it didn't work, so I used the little bedside lamp.

FM:

The lamp.

AK:

The little lamp, yes.

FM:

And you previously stated that you didn't look for the lamp either; you only looked for your computer when you went into your room. You didn't look for your money, you didn't look for your lamp.

AK:

So, I saw the window only the second time that I entered the house. The first time I went into the house I didn't even think of looking to see if anything was missing, because I saw going into the living room, it really looked like someone had just gone out of the house, everything was in order, just as I had left it. But the second time, I didn't even think of looking for the lamp: the computer was the important thing for me. All my documents were in it.

FM:

But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without any light?

AK:

It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.

FM:

Did you open your shutters or were they already open?

AK:

I don't remember.

FM:

To get to your room, to get to the window, you walked in the dark?

AK:

But it wasn't dark in my room. Often --

FM:

I don't know, I wasn't there.

AK:

All right. Usually I only turned on that little lamp at night. Really at night, or in the evening, when I wanted to...So I didn't even think of turning it on. It really wasn't dark in my room when I went in.

GCM:

It wasn't dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?

AK:

Natural.

GCM:

And what window was it coming from, this natural light?

AK:

I only have one window, but it was also coming from the other side because there's a balcony.

GCM:

And the door of the bathroom? Meredith's door was closed so no natural light was coming from there. Outside, there's the little corridor, the living room, Romanelli's door, and Laura Mezzetti's door. Which were the doors that let in light?

AK:

The door of the balcony on the other side of the corridor, which lets in light, and then there was the window.

GCM:

So, from the balcony, the corridor, the light actually reached your room?

AK:

Yes.

GCM:

That was the light that you had.

--http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony

So your depiction of the Italian judiciary as a bunch of clowns eager to 'witch hunt' is so far off the mark. But I know you will never reevaluate your opinion because it is based on a blind loyalty to someone you perceive as a celebrity.




.

 

[Numbers]

i had thought of this, but someone had mentioned that Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door. However, I just got Waiting to Be Heard from the library, and Amanda states, on p. 71 (hardback), that she told the Postal Police that Meredith only locked her door when she was changing clothes or out of town for the weekend, and then Filomena interrupted, clearly agitated, to say that Meredith never locked her door, and to demand that the police break it down.

I would say that Amanda is more likely to have been correct on this point. Filomena may well have assumed, just because she'd never known of Meredith's locking her door (in the relatively short time they'd been housemates) that she never did. However, Amanda could well have knocked at least once, and Meredith might have responded, "Just a minute! I'm changing!" (or whatever a young English woman of that time would have said in such circumstances), and then Amanda could have heard the door being unlocked before Meredith opened it. Amanda might also have actually observed Meredith lock her door before she left for the weekend.

Finally, it's possible that Meredith had recently started locking her door, or locking it more frequently, when she was away, but neither Amanda nor Filomena were aware of this. Possibly someone had suggested to her that she do this, or she might have gotten the idea on her own, such as from hearing about a break-in in the area.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, even though Filomena stated that Meredith never locked her door, we still can't exclude the possibility that Rudy could have found her keys in the lock.

IIRC, the front door lock had been broken some days before the murder, so Meredith Kercher might have taken the precaution of locking her room door when she left the cottage. So perhaps when she returned on 1 November 2007, she had left the keys in the lock after unlocking the door. Then, very suddenly, she was entering her room - had not even taken off her jacket - when Guede rushed in and began his assault on her. This is hypothetical but, I believe, not contradicted by other evidence.

Since it's clear that Guede had touched her bag (purse) and removed some (or all?) of the contents, it is possible that he found her keys in the bag. Locking the bedroom door would then take more thought on his part in this scenario than if he had found the key already in the lock.

There remains the mystery of what happened in the downstairs apartment. Many blood stains were found in that apartment, including one above a light switch mounted on a wall. In the DNA quantification stage of the DNA profiling test, human DNA was detected in samples obtained from those blood stains. However, Stefanoni claimed that she tested the blood stains for species (human, dog, or cat) and she claimed they were from a bleeding cat. However, her data sheets - which are simply pieces of paper where she checked off the species - do not show that she tested the blood stain above the light switch. Furthermore, the documentation of her testing for species that was made available, IIUC, does not convey a sufficient level of confidence that the testing had been done maintaining forensic standards. Meaning, perhaps, that an expert looking at the available data would not be able to say with confidence that the testing had in reality been done. (Note that if the blood was indeed from cat, then the samples taken must have picked up human DNA that had been deposited previously under the cat blood stain. The quantification/replication enzymes used in DNA profiling are highly specific for humans and don't cross-react with cat or other "lower" mammal DNA.)