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

[Vixen]

Tertiary transfer of DNA is an established fact. The SP's numerous violations of proper evidence-collection procedures are established facts. Your refusal to acknowledge those facts will not make them go away.

'Would, could and should' is not the same as 'did'.

 

[AmyStrange]

"'Would, could and should' is not the same as 'did'."


That little bit of spittle won't make them go away either.


-

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, I have the impression based on your post quoted above that you don't comprehend that the C & V report never went away. The Chieffi CSC panel had no grounds to declare it unusable and did not make any such declaration. Thus, the Marasca CSC panel had every legal authority to refer to the C & V report. It's important to recall, as I would hope you would be able to, despite any reading comprehension issues you may have, that the C & V report was not newly generated evidence, but an analysis of the work of the police, Scientific Police, and Stefanoni in relation to the knife and bra clasp evidence collection, DNA profiling forensic testing, and their reporting and testimony on these matters. In other words, as long as the police, Scientific Police, and Stefanoni's evidence on the knife and bra clasp were included in the trial, then the C & V report followed.

To give you some additional assistance in understanding the contamination issues, I recall your mentioning all the non-Italian forensic scientific citations in the C & V report as a problem. Perhaps your comments reflect some concerns voiced by some Italian authority or commentator. One point that nationalists who tend to reject "foreign" scientific results fail to understand is that scientific principles are not localized to artificial entities such as nations; the requirements for proper collection of forensic samples and proper laboratory procedures to avoid contamination for DNA testing apply to all places on earth. Opposing your seeming view that they are some type of American imposition on the world, here is a thorough paper on the topic from an author who is in the Department of Forensic Science and Criminology of the Dubai Police (UAE) and associated with the University of Central Lancashire (UK):


From page 50977:


Source: https://biomedres.us/pdfs/BJSTR.MS.ID.009223.pdf

You fail to understand that Salem Khalifa Alketbi of the Department of Forensic Science and Criminology of the Dubai Police and the University of Central Lancashire are both bent. Clearly, they are both paid off shills of the mafia and Alketbi is undoubtedly a close relative of the Alketbi Criminal Family of Dubai. As for the Univ. of C. Lancashire, they just felt sorry for Knox and Sollecito and wanted to help them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen has claimed what she has claimed about Chieffi's 2013 ISC panel's decision on C&V many, many times. She has been corrected each time, with the relevant quote from the Chieffi motivations report. Yet she keeps spouting it, as if Chieffi had not said what he'd said.

He made no comment, not really, about the legality of C&V. Chieffi had, as a grounds to annul Hellmann's acquital, that Hellmann had no business accepting the C&V decision on the untested, alleged DNA-sample on the knife - that Judge Hellmann had let C&V make the de facto decision about testing it - when that decision, Chieffi claimed, belonged to Hellmann and Hellmann alone. Chieffi therefore ordered the new court, which eventually was the Nencini court in Florence - to test the untested, alleged DNA found on the knife.

C&V was not annuled. Hellmann's acquital in 2011 was. C&V remained as part of the case. Chieffi did not rule that C&V were in legal error, he ruled that the Hellmann acquital was.

Which, in turn, was at issue when the final Marasca ISC panel finally and definitively acquited the pair in 2015, adding to all the reversals, by reversing Nencini's conviction from 2014.
In Marasca's motivations report, he solidly criticized the courts for trying to be, "the expert of the experts", replacing their judge's sense, with the technical expertise of actual experts.
Which ALL the courts accepted C&V as being. Experts.

Replacing the experts' conclusion with their own assumed expertise is what many PGP do. I can't tell you the number of PGP who have argued that the nine luminol revealed prints that ALL tested negative for blood with TMB were really still in blood because "Luminol is much more sensitive".

I'm currently arguing this with a PGP in another forum who can't get it through his thick skull that the prints could NOT have been diluted to the point that TMB was no longer capable of detecting blood but still leave the prints INTACT and clearly recognizable as footprints. In true PGP form, he ignores the actual question of how that's possible by declaring the question itself is 'malformed' and something about 'oxiders'.

Unsurprisingly, this same poster still can't admit the rock was thrown from the outside despite my presenting two experts (a glass shatter expert and a ballistics expert) recreating the window breakage disproving his position. He also has claimed both these experts have been paid off to produce the results the defense needed.

One thing about the PGP is their ability to deny any evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[Stacyhs]

'Would, could and should' is not the same as 'did'.

Brilliant rebuttal. Almost as good as "Nuh-uhhhhh!"

 

[LondonJohn]

Brilliant rebuttal. Almost as good as "Nuh-uhhhhh!"

Vixen's posts regarding contamination issues demonstrate a profound lack of understanding. The defence does not have to prove contamination in order for the court to disregard any given forensic "evidence". Indeed, in many instances it's functionally impossible to prove contamination.

Rather, the defence has to show that contamination was a genuine possibility (or probability). And this is usually achieved with reference to the documented collection, storage, testing and reporting of the forensic evidence by crime scene officers and police/prosecution forensic scientists. If the defence can demonstrate sufficient serious lapses in procedure/protocols by the SOCOs and/or forensic scientists, the court ought to consider the relevant forensic evidence to have little or null probative value.

And as we all know, in this case there were fundamental and very serious mistakes, misconduct and misdirection on the part of the "world-class" not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and by her band of crime scene goons. Pretty much every significant procedure and protocol was utterly violated (we all know the huge list of incompetence, misconduct and lies, and they are jaw-dropping in their number and seriousness.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen's posts regarding contamination issues demonstrate a profound lack of understanding. The defence does not have to prove contamination in order for the court to disregard any given forensic "evidence". Indeed, in many instances it's functionally impossible to prove contamination.

Rather, the defence has to show that contamination was a genuine possibility (or probability). And this is usually achieved with reference to the documented collection, storage, testing and reporting of the forensic evidence by crime scene officers and police/prosecution forensic scientists. If the defence can demonstrate sufficient serious lapses in procedure/protocols by the SOCOs and/or forensic scientists, the court ought to consider the relevant forensic evidence to have little or null probative value.

And as we all know, in this case there were fundamental and very serious mistakes, misconduct and misdirection on the part of the "world-class" not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and by her band of crime scene goons. Pretty much every significant procedure and protocol was utterly violated (we all know the huge list of incompetence, misconduct and lies, and they are jaw-dropping in their number and seriousness.

Or, the prosecution must show that contamination was not a reasonable possibility, and that the alleged DNA results are reliable and probative.

The prosecution did not accomplish showing this in the Knox - Sollecito case, as evidenced by the analysis conducted by Conti and Vecchiotti, the court-appointed experts who reviewed the work of the scientific police and Stefanoni on the knife and bra clasp alleged DNA results.

 

[Vixen]

You fail to understand that Salem Khalifa Alketbi of the Department of Forensic Science and Criminology of the Dubai Police and the University of Central Lancashire are both bent. Clearly, they are both paid off shills of the mafia and Alketbi is undoubtedly a close relative of the Alketbi Criminal Family of Dubai. As for the Univ. of C. Lancashire, they just felt sorry for Knox and Sollecito and wanted to help them.

Alketbi was seen with a US$500,000 Lamborghini. Explain that away.

 

[Vixen]

Replacing the experts' conclusion with their own assumed expertise is what many PGP do. I can't tell you the number of PGP who have argued that the nine luminol revealed prints that ALL tested negative for blood with TMB were really still in blood because "Luminol is much more sensitive".

I'm currently arguing this with a PGP in another forum who can't get it through his thick skull that the prints could NOT have been diluted to the point that TMB was no longer capable of detecting blood but still leave the prints INTACT and clearly recognizable as footprints. In true PGP form, he ignores the actual question of how that's possible by declaring the question itself is 'malformed' and something about 'oxiders'.

Unsurprisingly, this same poster still can't admit the rock was thrown from the outside despite my presenting two experts (a glass shatter expert and a ballistics expert) recreating the window breakage disproving his position. He also has claimed both these experts have been paid off to produce the results the defense needed.

One thing about the PGP is their ability to deny any evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.

The only other substance luminol reacts to are things such as grass and some root vegetable juices. So you are claiming Knox and Sollecito were padding around in turnip juice, whilst Guede's luminol highlights are obviously blood. Better let US cops know that luminol is rubbish and should not be used at crime scenes.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's posts regarding contamination issues demonstrate a profound lack of understanding. The defence does not have to prove contamination in order for the court to disregard any given forensic "evidence". Indeed, in many instances it's functionally impossible to prove contamination.

Rather, the defence has to show that contamination was a genuine possibility (or probability). And this is usually achieved with reference to the documented collection, storage, testing and reporting of the forensic evidence by crime scene officers and police/prosecution forensic scientists. If the defence can demonstrate sufficient serious lapses in procedure/protocols by the SOCOs and/or forensic scientists, the court ought to consider the relevant forensic evidence to have little or null probative value.

And as we all know, in this case there were fundamental and very serious mistakes, misconduct and misdirection on the part of the "world-class" not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and by her band of crime scene goons. Pretty much every significant procedure and protocol was utterly violated (we all know the huge list of incompetence, misconduct and lies, and they are jaw-dropping in their number and seriousness.

Exactly, and the defence failed to do this. All it could come up with was a pathetic screen shot carefully selected to show a dark patch on Stefanoni's latex glove and suggesting it was dirt. Seriously, only a simpleton believes DNA hops about from place to place or that it is the remotest bit possible that Stefanoni somehow transferred Sollecito's full DNA profile onto the murder victim's underwear. Given the only other DNA of Sollecito found at the cottage was on a cigarette stub, perhaps explain the path of contamination from there to that. I'll get into my listening mode.

 

[Vixen]

Or, the prosecution must show that contamination was not a reasonable possibility, and that the alleged DNA results are reliable and probative.

The prosecution did not accomplish showing this in the Knox - Sollecito case, as evidenced by the analysis conducted by Conti and Vecchiotti, the court-appointed experts who reviewed the work of the scientific police and Stefanoni on the knife and bra clasp alleged DNA results.

But the prosecution did show Stefanoni's methods were sound. Nencini did curl his lip at the defence's pathetic case and upheld the murder convictions as absolutely soundly established, in particular via the DNA results. The defence DNA expert, Gino, was so inept, she claimed at Guede's hearing that Mez had been stabbed 33 times. _DOH!

 

[TruthCalls]

The only other substance luminol reacts to are things such as grass and some root vegetable juices. So you are claiming Knox and Sollecito were padding around in turnip juice, whilst Guede's luminol highlights are obviously blood. Better let US cops know that luminol is rubbish and should not be used at crime scenes.

ANYTHING that contains iron will react with Luminol. You seem to think the industry's understanding that Luminol is prone to false positives is misguided, but it's a well known shortcoming which is understood by forensic investigators around the world.

Luminol plays a critical role in forensic investigations. It's ability to be sprayed over large areas, and it's sensitivity, makes it the primary tool for locating POSSIBLE blood. If we were to advise those "US cops" (as well as Stefanoni and her team) anything, it would be to remind them a positive Luminol reaction does NOT mean they've found blood, and just as the products documentation states, further testing is required to confirm the sample really is blood, is human blood, and then a DNA profile is required to prove whose blood it is.

31 Luminol positive samples were collected in this case. Of those 31, 18 were tested using TMB, including all 9 collected at the cottage. Only one, located in Guede's apartment, tested positive for blood (and, ironically, this sample tested negative for DNA). Perhaps even more telling, of the 31, only 3 contained Meredith's DNA profile. So clearly, given these results, it's logical to conclude Luminol had been reacting to something other than Meredith's blood. Well, "clearly" if you are impartial, neutral and entirely objective.

 

[TruthCalls]

Exactly, and the defence failed to do this. All it could come up with was a pathetic screen shot carefully selected to show a dark patch on Stefanoni's latex glove and suggesting it was dirt. Seriously, only a simpleton believes DNA hops about from place to place or that it is the remotest bit possible that Stefanoni somehow transferred Sollecito's full DNA profile onto the murder victim's underwear. Given the only other DNA of Sollecito found at the cottage was on a cigarette stub, perhaps explain the path of contamination from there to that. I'll get into my listening mode.

You keep making the same claim, but when faced with evidence to the contrary you bury your head in the sand.

So let's try this again. This is not an exhaustive list, but clearly it's eight points regarding the collection/testing/analysis/storage of the clasp that should automatically render the clasp as unreliable. I've asked you repeatedly to address this list, but you never do, and the reason is clear. If you address the list, and admit every point is valid, you'd be forced to admit the clasp should have been discarded, an admission you'd rather not make. Nonetheless, the list is valid, and it proves Stefanoni and her team screwed up. You're in denial. Perhaps it's time you grow up, act like an adult and admit it.

1. Failed to collect a severed bra clasp found at the scene of a sexual assault during the initial investigation, when it was numbered and photographed.
2. Waited 46 days before collecting it, when it had to have been seen on multiple occasions as Meredith's bedroom was emptied.
3. Why did she pick the clasp up with visibly dirty gloves
4. Why did she rub the hook of the clasp. Did that somehow allow her to better interpret the evidence?
5. Why was it passed around and handled by other members of the SP who were there
6. Why was it put back down on the ground to be photographed. It had already been photographed multiple times.
7. Why did Stefanoni only amplify the sample one time when she knows multiple amplifications is mandated by ENFSI standards that Italy is suppose to follow.
8. Why was the clasp improperly stored, causing it to rust and render it useless for subsequent testing. Deliberate or incompetence?

 

[Vixen]

ANYTHING that contains iron will react with Luminol. You seem to think the industry's understanding that Luminol is prone to false positives is misguided, but it's a well known shortcoming which is understood by forensic investigators around the world.

Luminol plays a critical role in forensic investigations. It's ability to be sprayed over large areas, and it's sensitivity, makes it the primary tool for locating POSSIBLE blood. If we were to advise those "US cops" (as well as Stefanoni and her team) anything, it would be to remind them a positive Luminol reaction does NOT mean they've found blood, and just as the products documentation states, further testing is required to confirm the sample really is blood, is human blood, and then a DNA profile is required to prove whose blood it is.

31 Luminol positive samples were collected in this case. Of those 31, 18 were tested using TMB, including all 9 collected at the cottage. Only one, located in Guede's apartment, tested positive for blood (and, ironically, this sample tested negative for DNA). Perhaps even more telling, of the 31, only 3 contained Meredith's DNA profile. So clearly, given these results, it's logical to conclude Luminol had been reacting to something other than Meredith's blood. Well, "clearly" if you are impartial, neutral and entirely objective.

The substance luminol reacts to in haemoglobin is iron and is the cause of haemoglobin's red colour on exposure to oxygen. The luminol reacts with the iron element in red blood cells to cause a brief flash of luminescence that can be caught on night camera. If the haematic substance has already been oxidised by bleach (as in cleaning up), there won't be any haemoglobin to trace. Don't forget, certain types of household bleach oxidise the haematic substance (i.e. the red blood cells) which means IOW the ferric element which luminol reacts to which identifies likely blood, is no more. This can be a reason why DNA tests can present as positive, but not for blood. (We know there was cleaning up by virtue of there being just one set of Guede's shoe footprints visible, and RS's footprint in blood on the bathmat without any visible footprints leading up to it.) Stacyhs will be along shortly to say RS would not have left his footprint on the bathmat if he knew it was going to be found. So that solves that, then.

 

[Vixen]

You keep making the same claim, but when faced with evidence to the contrary you bury your head in the sand.

So let's try this again. This is not an exhaustive list, but clearly it's eight points regarding the collection/testing/analysis/storage of the clasp that should automatically render the clasp as unreliable. I've asked you repeatedly to address this list, but you never do, and the reason is clear. If you address the list, and admit every point is valid, you'd be forced to admit the clasp should have been discarded, an admission you'd rather not make. Nonetheless, the list is valid, and it proves Stefanoni and her team screwed up. You're in denial. Perhaps it's time you grow up, act like an adult and admit it.

1. Failed to collect a severed bra clasp found at the scene of a sexual assault during the initial investigation, when it was numbered and photographed.
2. Waited 46 days before collecting it, when it had to have been seen on multiple occasions as Meredith's bedroom was emptied.
3. Why did she pick the clasp up with visibly dirty gloves
4. Why did she rub the hook of the clasp. Did that somehow allow her to better interpret the evidence?
5. Why was it passed around and handled by other members of the SP who were there
6. Why was it put back down on the ground to be photographed. It had already been photographed multiple times.
7. Why did Stefanoni only amplify the sample one time when she knows multiple amplifications is mandated by ENFSI standards that Italy is suppose to follow.
8. Why was the clasp improperly stored, causing it to rust and render it useless for subsequent testing. Deliberate or incompetence?

As you yourself point out, the Rome Scientific Police marked the spot where the bra clasp was found (under the body). When it realised it had been inadvertently left behind at the crime scene (which was sealed off for six weeks) the team returned in their usual protective hazmat gear and recovered it from under a rug. As with the first collection of forensic evidence, this too, was observed livestream by the defence witnesses in a van outside. DNA does not jump from one spot to another. The defence cannot provide any realistic pathway by which Stefanoni could have transferred Sollecito's DNA on her latex glove to the bra clasp. Unlike in your cited Anderson case Stefanoni was never in contact with Sollecito for his DNA to transfer to her. Each member of the police and forensic team, including the prosecutors, all provided their DNA samples, so as to cross double check it could not have come from any of them. Sollecito's full DNA profile is statistically >3bn to one against it came from anyone but him. Face reality: Sollecito's DNA is on the bra clasp because he put it there, up close and personal to the murder victim. I was watching Squid Game 3 the other day and there is a particular game in which one team has to

kill each member of the other team with a knife.

for all of its Shakespearean pathos and black humour, it was terrifying to watch and I couldn't help thinking what kind of mentality would even consider doing such a thing to another person. There was one guy who

was high on drugs up to his eyeballs that gave him dutch courage

but at least most of them did it because

they were forced to do it by the game rules as a matter of life and death; it was either the blues or them. At the end of the game, if they failed to kill anyone by stabbing with a knife, then they were despatched by the guards

and only the odd one or two because of thrill-seeking.

 

[TruthCalls]

The substance luminol reacts to in haemoglobin is iron and is the cause of haemoglobin's red colour on exposure to oxygen. The luminol reacts with the iron element in red blood cells to cause a brief flash of luminescence that can be caught on night camera.

Thanks but I'm pretty sure everyone here knows exactly what Luminol is and how it works.

If the haematic substance has already been oxidised by bleach (as in cleaning up), there won't be any haemoglobin to trace. Don't forget, certain types of household bleach oxidise the haematic substance (i.e. the red blood cells) which means IOW the ferric element which luminol reacts to which identifies likely blood, is no more.

We know this as well, but I'd remind you we are discussing positive Luminol samples.

This can be a reason why DNA tests can present as positive,

Yet 28 of 31 samples did not contain Meredith's DNA...

but not for blood. (We know there was cleaning up by virtue of there being just one set of Guede's shoe footprints visible, and RS's footprint in blood on the bathmat without any visible footprints leading up to it.)

No, we don't know there was a clean-up. In fact, by way of spraying Luminol the SP actually proved there was no clean-up as there were none of the typical streaks and swirls detected after a clean-up, and by virtue of there actually being bloody shoe prints in the hall. Guede only had wet blood on the bottom of one shoe, that's why only one shoe left prints. And Guede's footprint on the bathmat got put there after he rinsed his pants leg of blood, leaving some diluted blood on the bottom of his foot.

Stacyhs will be along shortly to say RS would not have left his footprint on the bathmat if he knew it was going to be found. So that solves that, then.

And she'd have a point. If they had done a clean-up, they would not have left his print on the mat.

 

[TruthCalls]

As you yourself point out, the Rome Scientific Police marked the spot where the bra clasp was found (under the body). When it realised it had been inadvertently left behind at the crime scene (which was sealed off for six weeks) the team returned in their usual protective hazmat gear and recovered it from under a rug. As with the first collection of forensic evidence, this too, was observed livestream by the defence witnesses in a van outside. DNA does not jump from one spot to another. The defence cannot provide any realistic pathway by which Stefanoni could have transferred Sollecito's DNA on her latex glove to the bra clasp. Unlike in your cited Anderson case Stefanoni was never in contact with Sollecito for his DNA to transfer to her. Each member of the police and forensic team, including the prosecutors, all provided their DNA samples, so as to cross double check it could not have come from any of them. Sollecito's full DNA profile is statistically >3bn to one against it came from anyone but him. Face reality: Sollecito's DNA is on the bra clasp because he put it there, up close and personal to the murder victim. I was watching Squid Game 3 the other day and there is a particular game in which one team has to

for all of its Shakespearean pathos and black humour, it was terrifying to watch and I couldn't help thinking what kind of mentality would even consider doing such a thing to another person. There was one guy who

but at least most of them did it because

and only the odd one or two because of thrill-seeking.

View media item 8876
Nothing more needs to be said. Visibly dirty gloves, fingers gripping the very hook where Raffaele's DNA is later found, multiple techs reaching in and touching the clasp. This is exactly how NOT TO COLLECT EVIDENCE. Sorry, you can make all the excuses you want, but this one photo is all any impartial, neutral and entirely objective observer would need to know the clasp is no longer reliable.

And no, sorry.. the cottage was accessed multiple times between 2 Nov and 18 Dec, there are photos showing investigators NOT dressed in hazmat gear while walking through the cottage. I don't understand why you lie about this when you know everyone here knows the truth. Meredith's bedroom had been completely emptied, which means they were walking around, over and perhaps ON the clasp before finally collecting it.

ETA: Once again you avoid the list of things they did wrong WRT the clasp. Your refusal to face the facts is the best evidence you know damn well they screwed up.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks but I'm pretty sure everyone here knows exactly what Luminol is and how it works.

We know this as well, but I'd remind you we are discussing positive Luminol samples.

Yet 28 of 31 samples did not contain Meredith's DNA...

No, we don't know there was a clean-up. In fact, by way of spraying Luminol the SP actually proved there was no clean-up as there were none of the typical streaks and swirls detected after a clean-up, and by virtue of there actually being bloody shoe prints in the hall. Guede only had wet blood on the bottom of one shoe, that's why only one shoe left prints. And Guede's footprint on the bathmat got put there after he rinsed his pants leg of blood, leaving some diluted blood on the bottom of his foot.

And she'd have a point. If they had done a clean-up, they would not have left his print on the mat.

All that proves is that it is difficult to leave your DNA behind. If you send off for a genealogy test, such as 23+me, or provide one for police, they will ask you to spend quite a long time scraping the inner cheek to ensure a good quality amount of sample material. Likewise, as the father of forensic testing said - no it is not Gill - absence of DNA is not proof of absence of person. As for cleaning up, you seem to now be claiming, in an effort to shoe horn the facts (pun intended) to an alternative what-if scenario that Guede was hopping along on one foot, the foot with the Nike Outbreak 2 size 11/45 that left the one-sided visible trail straight out of Mez' room and out of the front door. If that was the case Guede would have needed to have been hopping, for reasons best known to himself as he made no other effort to hide his forensic presence. So, what happened to the other shoe, did he leave it behind? If so where? And why not put it back on after supposedly 'rinsing the blood off his foot'? As with Leopold and Loeb, no matter how clever and perfect a criminal might think their crime, they always overlook something (think Kohberger, leaving the K-Bar sheath behind _DOH!). This is why we have detectives and forensic police because there will almost always be a clue of some sort or other,

 

[Vixen]

View media item 8876
Nothing more needs to be said. Visibly dirty gloves, fingers gripping the very hook where Raffaele's DNA is later found, multiple techs reaching in and touching the clasp. This is exactly how NOT TO COLLECT EVIDENCE. Sorry, you can make all the excuses you want, but this one photo is all any impartial, neutral and entirely objective observer would need to know the clasp is no longer reliable.

And no, sorry.. the cottage was accessed multiple times between 2 Nov and 18 Dec, there are photos showing investigators NOT dressed in hazmat gear while walking through the cottage. I don't understand why you lie about this when you know everyone here knows the truth. Meredith's bedroom had been completely emptied, which means they were walking around, over and perhaps ON the clasp before finally collecting it.

ETA: Once again you avoid the list of things they did wrong WRT the clasp. Your refusal to face the facts is the best evidence you know damn well they screwed up.

The bra clasp - a key item - was just ONE of 500 exhibits that made up the evidence against the duo. Sollecito's father paid a top forensic scientist to witness Stefanoni's testing and he passed on no complaint or concern about the methodology of the testing or collecting whatsoever.

 

[TruthCalls]

All that proves is that it is difficult to leave your DNA behind. If you send off for a genealogy test, such as 23+me, or provide one for police, they will ask you to spend quite a long time scraping the inner cheek to ensure a good quality amount of sample material.

Blood is an excellent source of DNA, yet 28 of 31 samples did NOT contain Meredith's blood. I dare you to find one credible forensic expert who would claim it's possible to track someone's blood to three different physical locations, leaving 31 samples, and 28 of them will have no detectable DNA. It's not possible.

Likewise, as the father of forensic testing said - no it is not Gill - absence of DNA is not proof of absence of person.

Sure, if I swab some likely locations and find no DNA, that doesn't mean the suspect wasn't there. But that's not what we're talking about. You want to claim Luminol was reacting to Meredith's blood. So it's an absence of DNA in a sample you claim is blood. THAT is a very different discussion.

As for cleaning up, you seem to now be claiming, in an effort to shoe horn the facts (pun intended) to an alternative what-if scenario that Guede was hopping along on one foot, the foot with the Nike Outbreak 2 size 11/45 that left the one-sided visible trail straight out of Mez' room and out of the front door. If that was the case Guede have needed to have been hopping, for reason best known to himself as he made no other effort to hide his forensic presence. So, what happened to the other shoe, did he leave it behind? If so where?

He wasn't hopping, he only had wet blood on the sole of one shoe.

And why not put it back on after supposedly 'rinsing the blood off it'?

He did.

As with Leopold and Loeb, no matter how clever and perfect a criminal might think there crime, they always overlook something (think Kohberger, leaving the K-Bar sheath behind\_DOH!). This is why we have detectives and forensic police because there will almost always be a clue of some sort or other,

Yeah, and they had plenty of evidence of Guede, who like Kohberger, was sloppy enough to leave enough evidence behind to get caught.