Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[acbytesla]

It really is too bad that Mignini stopped the coroner from doing his job like taking the body temperature. Since establishing time of death is such an important factor in determining the guilt or innocence of any suspect. Imagine if we had that one extra piece of evidence that proves that Meredith died between 9:00 and 9:30 or even 10:00?

That single step alone should be reason enough to fire Mignini. How much money did this wrongful prosecution cost Italy? A million? Two million? Three? Add in the experts, the salaries of the police, the judges, the lawyers, that silly cartoon that cost about 200K.

One little test and none of this might never have happened.

The Italians should really call him Mignini the moron.

 

[Grinder]

I think LJ makes a very good point. Yes absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
No one can find evidence of me in the murder room, so maybe I did it!!!!
My location and alibi for the specific time and place cannot be corroborated, so maybe I did it!!!!
I have an 8 inch knife that doesn't match the knife wounds on the stain, so maybe I did it!!

But Anglo will tell you about some old French guy and his theory that something is always left behind and something is always taken. The absence of evidence is not enough for reasonable doubt.

Rudi didn't leave anything in F's room and yet most everyone here is absolutely convinced he accessed the house through that room.

Grinder gives no weight to the psycho-pathological profiles and histories of Amanda and Raffaele. He gives no weight to the lack of motive. He swats them away saying that these facts are totally irrelevant. He does the same with the absence of motive.

Not no weight but rather equal weight to other PG arguments that I give next to no weight to.

I'd agree with him if they found Amanda's clothes soaked in Meredith's blood or Amanda's fingerprints in Meredith's blood in the murder room.

My question to Grinder and Couldson, at what point does the absence of evidence mean anything?

It means that proving beyond a reasonable doubt becomes that much harder. It could mean they were very careful not leave anything behind.

Now, the other side would argue that in addition to the DNA they left bloody footprints , AK's blood on the sink, caught with cleaning material, seen shopping for more cleaning material, stories that didn't match each other, witnesses that proved them liars, cleaned up during the night and odd delay of calling the police. I don't believe that the PGP have solid backing for any of the above.

 

[Grinder]

It really is too bad that Mignini stopped the coroner from doing his job like taking the body temperature. Since establishing time of death is such an important factor in determining the guilt or innocence of any suspect. Imagine if we had that one extra piece of evidence that proves that Meredith died between 9:00 and 9:30 or even 10:00?

There is no question that the earlier a temp is taken the better the result. Chris will probably give cites that are only readable by the scientific elite but before those roll in I'd guess no matter when taken the TOD from that metric wouldn't be that precise. There is no way that the temp would be taken before 3 pm and certainly there is reason to do some evidence gathering before moving the body and allowing the coroner in the room. Hindsight tells us the TOD is significant in relationship to the kids but not Rudi.

The Kids get off if the TOD is before 9:45 IMO. There is no way that body temp with the unknowns of house temp, length she was covered, and whether she was moved could narrow the TOD to one hour even if taken at 3 pm.

What is more concerning to me is that Lalli was thrown off the case. Lalli was the one that did the stomach contents and his being removed seemed to allow more criticism of his work, unfairly.

 

[anglolawyer]

But Anglo will tell you about some old French guy and his theory that something is always left behind and something is always taken. The absence of evidence is not enough for reasonable doubt.

Rudi didn't leave anything in F's room and yet most everyone here is absolutely convinced he accessed the house through that room.

It's time to nail this canard. The French guy is Locard. Grinder, a serial lounger on yachts and in condos, with no known qualifications at all, dismisses Locard, methinks too easily.

Let's see what Forensic Science, published by Maelstrom in 2008 says about it:

This principle, which ties together the diverse investigations of the forensic sciences, has been called the basis of criminalistics. Variously formulated, it is expressed most succinctly as “Every contact leaves a trace.” This applies broadly to interactions ranging from those that leave fingerprints to those that make the markings on a bullet, but it is of particular relevance to what is known as trace evidence. Locard called the microscopic particles that adhere to people’s clothing and bodies “mute witnesses, sure and faithful, of all our movements and all our encounters.”
Almost any kind of trace material can come to the attention of forensic scientists: hair, dirt, blood, fibers, and other substances. Some materials are more individualizable than others, but individuation may not be necessary to raise questions about how the presence of particular materials is to be explained. Because evidentiary use of enchanged materials depends on there being no acceptable alternative explanation for the materials being where they are, issues of chain of custody and prevention of contamination are extremely important.

So, there we have it. In a book.

As to Filomena's room, consider the differences between what took place there and what took place in the victim's room. In the former, Rudy, wearing gloves (an indispensable part of the window-breaking burglar's armoury) breaks the window, climbs the wall, plucks out some shards of glass with his gloved hand, reaches in and opens the window pane and climbs through. He walks through the room to the kitchen. He may have picked up some glass on the soles of a shoe while doing so and I think there is something about this possibility somewhere or other. If he did, that would be in accordance with Locard, but it is not beyond the bounds of reason that he would leave no trace at all and we have to add to this the unfortunate fact that, before we conclude that he left no trace, we must judge the forensic science to be reliable, which it is not.

Contrast the radically different scenario in the victim's room. There a struggle took place involving movement, violence and a lot of blood. We know nothing of transfer from the victim to Guede, except, of course, the cuts to the fingers of his hand, which counts for these purposes, and which survived until his arrest. Had they found his clothes it's a very fair bet they would have found her hair, blood, fibres* etc. on them just as the cops found fibres on the clothes of one of Stephen Lawrence's attackers 18 years after his death in a street attack which involved much less contact than that between Guede and Meredith Kercher.

And I am sure I don't need to reel off the numerous and grossly obvious instances of transfer from Guede (shoe prints, palm print, finger prints, epithelial cells, knife print) but I find I have anyway.

There is transfer in the bathroom, actually, comprising his bare foot print but, as the extract above says: 'Some materials are more individualizable than others ... ' and the bathmat print is unfortunately one of the 'others'.

So let's put this to rest Grinder, please. Alternatively, please cite authority for your apparent view that Locard is of no weight.

*for the thousandth time, where is the fibre evidence in this case?

 

[Grinder]

It's time to nail this canard. The French guy is Locard. Grinder, a serial lounger on yachts and in condos, with no known qualifications at all, dismisses Locard, methinks too easily.

Anglo, I said I was shopping for a condo - never have lounged in one of my own. I only indicated that you would bring him out and say that something is always left behind. No known qualifications...I thought on the Internet having Google and a keyboard were all that is required

As always I agree when anybody accuses the ICSI or ILE of lacking competence. I do think the lack of Rudi's DNA in the bathroom is significant.

What is your latest prediction on the Galati appeal? If they reverse Hellmann do you think they will send the case to Turin?

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo, I said I was shopping for a condo - never have lounged in one of my own. I only indicated that you would bring him out and say that something is always left behind. No known qualifications...I thought on the Internet having Google and a keyboard were all that is required

As always I agree when anybody accuses the ICSI or ILE of lacking competence. I do think the lack of Rudi's DNA in the bathroom is significant.

Funny. That doesn't keep me awake at night. Stefanoni herself explains that epithelial cells are not always deposited. All he did was grab some towels and wash a foot in the bidet. Her team's general incompetence probably accounts for anything there was being missed. The PGPs like this point a lot:

absence of evidence of Guede in bathroom = absence of evidence of A & R in the bedroom

This defective equation (which seemingly exerts a pull on you also) allows them to dismiss the tedium and bother of the forensics and switch to all the lies instead. 'It can't be proved they were there but they lied so much they're guilty anyway'.

What is your latest prediction on the Galati appeal? If they reverse Hellmann do you think they will send the case to Turin?

I am truly dismayed that you have not noticed I have not made any predictions about the appeal. Therefore, I cannot make a 'latest' one. I know the unpredictability of litigation and don't join in with those who say this or that will happen. The bits of Galati I have tried to master don't impress me much but I have found it hard to get a good debate going with anyone who both espouses and understands him (if such a person exists) so my critique is untested. Which is a pity because I am sure I have the beggar nailed on some pretty key points (petitio principii, corax, the proper use of circumstantial evidence, the preposterous defence of Curatolo etc). If Galati is anything to go by they should get off OK but look what happened in Massei's court ...

 

[LondonJohn]

Anglo, I said I was shopping for a condo - never have lounged in one of my own. I only indicated that you would bring him out and say that something is always left behind. No known qualifications...I thought on the Internet having Google and a keyboard were all that is required

As always I agree when anybody accuses the ICSI or ILE of lacking competence. I do think the lack of Rudi's DNA in the bathroom is significant.
What is your latest prediction on the Galati appeal? If they reverse Hellmann do you think they will send the case to Turin?

This would indeed be a problem (both in terms of judicial guilt for the murder and factual culpability for the murder) if there were not already extremely strong evidence -forensic and other - of Guede's guilt existing elsewhere.

As far as I am concerned, all one needs to figure out the truth (that Guede committed this murder, almost certainly alone) is five things:

1) Guede's own statements, particularly when set against points 2 and 3;
2) Guede dancing in the city centre clubs only a few hours after the murder;
3) Guede's flight to Germany some 48-72 hours after the murder;
4) Guede's palm print made in Meredith's blood, found on the pillowcase under her body;
5) Guede's epithelial DNA found inside Meredith's genital region (remembering that this DNA was swabbed by the autopsy pathologist, not the goons from the Scientific Police).

These five points, taken together, are easily enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guede was at the very least an active participant in the murder.

Then one goes on to wonder whether others were involved. In order to do so, one first looks for positive credible evidence that anyone else was involved. But in this case there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved. Then one wonders whether the known evidence is compatible with a single assailant, or whether some or all of the evidence is only compatible with multiple assailants. But in this case all of the known evidence is compatible with a single assailant, and none of it is only compatible with multiple assailants.

Therefore, in the absence of any new evidence emerging, one has to conclude the following: a) Guede is judicially and factually guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher; b) Guede committed this attack and murder entirely on his own.

Where the small bathroom evidence (and lack of evidence) fits in is as follows: one cannot draw any positive inferences from the evidence (and lack of) in this room; however, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that it was Guede who went to the small bathroom after the murder to collect towels, and that it was Guede who washed blood off himself in the small bathroom. This right to speculate is further endorsed by Guede's own statements, in which he directly alludes to these acts. The fact that no evidence of Guede was found in the small bathroom means that his presence there can never be proven. However, it's not necessary to prove this in order to prove Guede's guilt for the murder, and furthermore nothing found (and not found) in the small bathroom is INCOMPATIBLE with Guede being the sole attacker.

 

[anglolawyer]

This would indeed be a problem (both in terms of judicial guilt for the murder and factual culpability for the murder) if there were not already extremely strong evidence -forensic and other - of Guede's guilt existing elsewhere.

As far as I am concerned, all one needs to figure out the truth (that Guede committed this murder, almost certainly alone) is five things:

1) Guede's own statements, particularly when set against points 2 and 3;
2) Guede dancing in the city centre clubs only a few hours after the murder;
3) Guede's flight to Germany some 48-72 hours after the murder;
4) Guede's palm print made in Meredith's blood, found on the pillowcase under her body;
5) Guede's epithelial DNA found inside Meredith's genital region (remembering that this DNA was swabbed by the autopsy pathologist, not the goons from the Scientific Police).

These five points, taken together, are easily enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guede was at the very least an active participant in the murder.

Then one goes on to wonder whether others were involved. In order to do so, one first looks for positive credible evidence that anyone else was involved. But in this case there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved. Then one wonders whether the known evidence is compatible with a single assailant, or whether some or all of the evidence is only compatible with multiple assailants. But in this case all of the known evidence is compatible with a single assailant, and none of it is only compatible with multiple assailants.

Therefore, in the absence of any new evidence emerging, one has to conclude the following: a) Guede is judicially and factually guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher; b) Guede committed this attack and murder entirely on his own.

Where the small bathroom evidence (and lack of evidence) fits in is as follows: one cannot draw any positive inferences from the evidence (and lack of) in this room; however, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that it was Guede who went to the small bathroom after the murder to collect towels, and that it was Guede who washed blood off himself in the small bathroom. This right to speculate is further endorsed by Guede's own statements, in which he directly alludes to these acts. The fact that no evidence of Guede was found in the small bathroom means that his presence there can never be proven. However, it's not necessary to prove this in order to prove Guede's guilt for the murder, and furthermore nothing found (and not found) in the small bathroom is INCOMPATIBLE with Guede being the sole attacker.

I would express agreement with all of this were it not for the fact that Coulsdon would take my doing so as confirmation that we form some sort of exclusive club here, patting each other on the back in complete and continuous agreement. This is a useful (and false) PGP myth that affords a convenient excuse for their mostly remaining safely behind their fortifications.

 

[Grinder]

I would express agreement with all of this were it not for the fact that Coulsdon would take my doing so as confirmation that we form some sort of exclusive club here, patting each other on the back in complete and continuous agreement. This is a useful (and false) PGP myth that affords a convenient excuse for their mostly remaining safely behind their fortifications.

LJ and perhaps you missed the point. Rudi was there. There is no doubt about that. There is little question that he was in the small and the large bathrooms.

Perhaps I should replace significant with interesting. He left evidence in the murder room and the large bathroom. He almost certainly washed up and grabbed towels in the small bathroom. I think it is his footprint on the mat. Yet, no evidence of DNA or his blood (from cuts on his hands) was found. Locard turning over in his grave.

 

[anglolawyer]

LJ and perhaps you missed the point. Rudi was there. There is no doubt about that. There is little question that he was in the small and the large bathrooms.

Perhaps I should replace significant with interesting. He left evidence in the murder room and the large bathroom. He almost certainly washed up and grabbed towels in the small bathroom. I think it is his footprint on the mat. Yet, no evidence of DNA or his blood (from cuts on his hands) was found. Locard turning over in his grave.

Well, I think Locard is sleeping soundly, personally, but I agree about Rudy's blood, that they didn't find any of his is very strange, not to say suspicious.

 

[acbytesla]

But Anglo will tell you about some old French guy and his theory that something is always left behind and something is always taken. The absence of evidence is not enough for reasonable doubt.

Rudi didn't leave anything in F's room and yet most everyone here is absolutely convinced he accessed the house through that room.



Not no weight but rather equal weight to other PG arguments that I give next to no weight to.



It means that proving beyond a reasonable doubt becomes that much harder. It could mean they were very careful not leave anything behind.

Now, the other side would argue that in addition to the DNA they left bloody footprints , AK's blood on the sink, caught with cleaning material, seen shopping for more cleaning material, stories that didn't match each other, witnesses that proved them liars, cleaned up during the night and odd delay of calling the police. I don't believe that the PGP have solid backing for any of the above.

Personally, I give substantial weight to the fact that Amanda and Raffaele are both upstanding citizens of good character with no histories of violence between them. That they have no motive at all, not hatred, not jealousy, not financial, nothing even remotely reasonable.

Now of course this would go completely out the window if the police found Amanda's or Raffaele's blood all over their clothes or video taped going into or leaving the house during the time of the murder.

Take Rudy for example, his life was filled with upheaval, he had motive, (financial). He demonstrated consciousness of guilt by fleeing the country, He admitted being there during the murder during a conversation with a friend as opposed to being coerced during an interrogation. And during which he said Amanda wasn't there.

Yes your right the guilters hang on to witnesses that came forward a year later despite not mentioning it while being questioned days after the murder. They cling to bleach and cleanup despite the fact that not only wasn't any bleach found. but that there was no cleanup of any kind.

The police claimed that Amanda and Raffaele, held Meredith down and that Amanda also stabbed Meredith. But Rudy's DNA was found in countless samples including on Meredtith's clothes and in her vagina. Yet none of Amanda and none of Rudy.

Why would two upper middle class kids who barely knew each other who were having the time of their lives murder someone they barely knew?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, I think Locard is sleeping soundly, personally, but I agree about Rudy's blood, that they didn't find any of his is very strange, not to say suspicious.

I don't think the failure to find Guede's presence in the small bathroom is suspicious in the sense of deliberate intent. I think that the failure to find his DNA is either due to incompetent crime scene analysis, or to Guede simply not having left any sloughed off skin cells (e.g. washed them all away down drain holes), or both.

There is a theoretical third option, which is that Guede never even went into the small bathroom. However, his own statements refute that possibility, and the known physical evidence tends to corroborate Guede's claims to have gone into the small bathroom to collect towels, then to have returned to wash blood off himself. My opinion is that Guede volunteered these truthful actions (woven into his larger bogus narrative, of course...) in order to try to preemptively explain any forensics which might come back to that effect (i.e. "Yes, the reason why you've found my DNA in the small bathroom is that I went there to wash Meredith's blood off my trousers - I told you that before, so you ought to believe in the entirety of my story").

In my opinion, the very same reasoning lies behind Guede volunteering the time of Meredith's loud scream ("9.20-9.30"): I think he was worried that earwitnesses might have heard the scream, so he knew he would need to weave it (and possibly even stand to benefit from weaving it) into his "innocence" narrative.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ and perhaps you missed the point. Rudi was there. There is no doubt about that. There is little question that he was in the small and the large bathrooms.

Perhaps I should replace significant with interesting. He left evidence in the murder room and the large bathroom. He almost certainly washed up and grabbed towels in the small bathroom. I think it is his footprint on the mat. Yet, no evidence of DNA or his blood (from cuts on his hands) was found. Locard turning over in his grave.

I'm afraid I would have to take issue with the statement that there's "no doubt" that Guede was in the small bathroom. What I would say is that it's reasonable to infer that Guede was most likely in the small bathroom. This inference is driven largely by Guede's own statements to that effect, together with the reasoning that it was the murderer who was in the small bathroom, coupled with there being no reason whatsoever to suggest that this murder was carried out by anyone other than Guede alone.

Either way, it's totally unnecessary to establish this matter with any certainty in order to find that Guede killed Meredith Kercher. It's somewhat necessary to infer it in order to believe that Guede acted alone, but "no doubt" is too high a hurdle to be talking about, in my view.

However, to state my opinion again for the avoidance of misinterpretation: I think that the totality of the evidence shows that it was indeed Guede who was in the small bathroom. I base my belief on a) the inference that Guede killed Meredith Kercher alone, b) the inference that it was the killer who went into the small bathroom after the act, and c) Guede's own words on the matter.

Lastly, regarding the lack of evidence of Guede in the small bathroom, Locard doesn't necessarily need to start spinning just yet. There's every chance that the incompetent forensics team simply failed to collect evidence of his presence. There's also the possibility that he was wearing gloves during some or all of the clean-up, and/or that he managed to flush all of his blood and DNA down the drain holes. Absence of evidence is not evizzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[anglolawyer]

Guede's presence in the bathroom is proved by all the other evidence proving he and he alone was the murderer. Therefore, it's his footprint on the mat and Locard is satisfied.

 

[Bill Williams]

Guede's presence in the bathroom is proved by all the other evidence proving he and he alone was the murderer. Therefore, it's his footprint on the mat and Locard is satisfied.

"All the other evidence?" I was going to say something snarky about this term, then thought better of it..... just saying.

 

[Welshman]

Steve Moore the former FBI agent wrote a series of articles on the case. One of the main arguments he used was that if Amanda stabbed Meredith, she would have been standing close to her. One of Meredith's wounds spurted blood in large quantities. Because of this Amanda would have been sprayed with blood and Raffaele would also have been sprayed with blood because he was holding Meredith down. Naturally Amanda and Raffaele would have had blood on their clothing. In addition, they should have left bloody footprints, palm prints and fingerprints which means even if Amanda and Raffaele were naked as suggested by some PGP, they would have left blood traces. Steve Moore also argued Amanda and Raffaele should have had injuries in they had been engaged in a violent struggle. No evidence has been presented that Amanda and Raffaele had items of clothing missing. However, the defense never raised this issue in the first trial or the appeal. Is anyone surprised the defense never made an issue of the fact that Amanda and Raffaele had no blood on their clothing, they left no blood traces in the room and they had no injuries.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA in the bathroom

As always I agree when anybody accuses the ICSI or ILE of lacking competence. I do think the lack of Rudi's DNA in the bathroom is significant.

If Guede merely rinsed away Meredith's blood from his shoe and/or foot, it might not produce much of his own DNA. If he had scrubbed his feet with a brush, that might produce more DNA. There were towels that were stored improperly and became moldy, were there not? It is possible that the mold made the testing of DNA more difficult (that is what I seem to recall). Even though it may not be possible to prove, Guede might have himself bled on the towels.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shoe prints

LondonJohn,

We might also add bloody shoe prints to your list. These cannot be tied to any one individual, but they do narrow the field down considerably. I seem to recall that the defense argued that one or more shoe print suggested the presence of a shard of glass, but I cannot find a reference at this time.

 

[RandyN]

Rotting towels....

The "crack" scientific team allowed the bloodiest towel to rot inside a plastic bag. This rendered it untestable as I recall. No matter. We could see that many blood covered items including outer jacket, shoes, socks, purse, ahemmmm... bra clasp, were never collected at all during the first several days long crime scene examination. So how much of a leap is it to consider that if they failed to collect and process a bloody outer jacket that they may have missed some Guede DNA in the small bathroom?

He did admit to going in there. He also told us it was cold outside and he had wet pants. I recall a missing "blood" and hair sample from Filomenas room. But again no matter since if they found no RG evidence in Filomenas room it should be measured beside the fact that they also found no Filomena DNA in Filomenas room.

There is a small piece of glass discovered inside the murder room. This under-analyzed piece of evidence was tracked into there on the bottom of someones shoe or else carried there attached to the clothing of whoever may have broken out that window or tracked over the broken pieces.

TOD again was satisfied by a number of reasons all equal at least to body temperature, although Lalli could have gotten a better picture had be been allowed to take the temp, plus examine the body for the state of rigor mortis or lack there of...just little pieces to add to the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence already available...

Lets see, we have the killers statement that MK let out a loud scream somewhere around 9:20. We have unusual phone non-activity (in this case a lack of a call by MK to her mother plus no SMS activity or any computer interaction by Miss Kercher which was her habit. We know she arrived home around 9:08 or so. She never removed any outer clothing before she was attacked. Other small items have been mentioned but are less important IMO. Wet cloths in the dryer, no heat turned up in the cottage, etc.

Locard is a principle in general. But there are variables to explain certain missing evidences that might be expected...running water could easily wash away a few skin cells shed in the rinsing of hands...it is only speculation that Guede cut himself in the attack...he may in fact have been scratched by the cat downstairs...pity they didn't examine the evidence from down there....I think it would have been helpful.

I find it odd that the "experts" struggled to find a Knox fingerprint anywhere in the cottage...I would have went straight for the guitar...at least.

The bare footprints shown by luminol don't get to be considered IMHO. Just because ILE failed to take reference samples from all residents and maybe a few frequent visitors...seems like there was a slew of strange men into the cottage if I recall the news reports of the day correctly. Oh plus the English virgins must have visited...so they should have been sampled.

I see The Machine who is not a member here as far as I know is spouting off a litany of lies... oddly about someone else lying over at Pervert Quinells place. What a pity he will not join here...I would love to answer his each and every point. I would answer him in his own houses but they wont welcome me at any of those...

Sorry Coulson....it may seem like a back slapping club, but to be honest, no PGP is willing to lay out their case that proves guilt on any site that also allows a dissenting opinion. I wish The Machine, or PQ, or Kermit or Miss Piggy and the Skeptical Owl would come here and argue their points. But they wont. And there is a reason they wont. And I think you are well aware of that reason and yet remain a small voice of dissent and cling to and offer a small sample of their sides non points. I admire that you do that. I think it is a forgone conclusion that the facts of this case prove BARD that Rudy Guede alone murdered, raped and robbed Miss Kercher. And I also contend that the facts also show that AK and RS played no part what so ever nor do they bear any responsibility for Miss Kerchers untimely death.

I think this case showed the world what a "dirty" little city Perugia Italy actually is, and it is just one example of many others where ILE and the IJS failed miserably. There is also the Narducci matter and the Scazzi case and a long list of ridiculous cases including charges against scientists for failing to predict earthquakes...nuff said.

 

[anglolawyer]

There are plenty of references in Massei to the piece of glass found in the victim's room. Here he gives his theory about it:

This piece of glass (which in the film of the November 2, 2007 inspection, as indicated by Professor Introna, appears at 19:26 and 42 seconds) is noticeable as being quite close to a print left by a bloodied shoe and deprived of any stain which would have led to a discovery of whether the origin of the small cuts on the hands was really this piece of glass. Above all, the reason given to explain the wounds on the hands as coming from the harmful action of this piece of glass appears unlikely, both in itself (as it is quite difficult to imagine that one would fall precisely onto that little piece of glass, injuring oneself again) and also considering that there were multiple wounds to the hands and only one little piece of glass in the room.

...

Rather, the presence of this small piece of glass in the victim's room allows for another consideration. The itinerary that the phantom burglar would have taken, entering via the breaking of the window and window-*‐‑pane, has already been mentironed; Romanelli's room; the living room space crossed to go into the larger bathroom bathroom in which he left his sign of usage by not flushing; exit from the larger bathroom; another passage through [161] the living room to go along the hall and enter into Meredith's room. If it were so, one is unable to comprehend how it was possible that a piece of glass was dragged from Romanelli's room in various places and made to arrive in Meredith's room. It is more logical to think that, after the simulation of the burglary and the breaking of the window, the person who did this went into Meredith's room - to close the door and/or to cover her lifeless body with the duvet - and the glass fragment - which could have ended up, hypothetically, in a fold of clothing being worn or in some other place - came to fall, or rather it came to be brought in Meredith's room, into which, immediately after the breaking of the glass, it was carried by whoever broke that glass.

The thing I like about this theory is how it doesn't occur to Massei that the piece of glass could have been in a fold in the burglar's clothing but that's not my point here. I am defending Locard. It is important to understand that Locard does not say 'every contact leaves a trace in both directions and the trace so left will prove who committed the crime.' He only says the first part.

The universe being infinite (so they say) there must be another planet somewhere in which everything is exactly the same as here but on which they revere bathmats while considering humanoid life of little value, relatively speaking. On that planet, the concern of the authorities, confronted by exactly the same scene as the one we are discussing, is to find out who planted a bloody footprint on the bathmat. Without setting out all the evidence, is there anyone who really thinks they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Guede did? Even though the print is merely 'compatible' (a necessary but by itself insufficient condition)?

So, if you shift the spotlight around, things change. The bathmat print cannot be used to prove Guede murdered Meredith (in fact it is weak piece of circumstantial evidence that he did) but the overwhelming evidence that he was the murderer, acting alone, can prove that he left that print, thus satisfying Locard in the bathroom too.

Locard, was a scientist, not a policeman or a judge. His principle is limited to stating that traces will be left. He makes no claim to saying what they will prove. Anyhow, Locard is satisfied here (not that his is an invariable law, but just a strong principle) even in Romanelli's room and even though the 'contact' there was minimal compared to that in the victim's bedroom.

[How come I sometimes type out a long post and then get told it is too short?]