But the luminol prints carry a far greater amount of information: they are directly linked to the suspects (their feet, their room), they are located in the murder house, so they have an extreme, and exclusive proximity to the murder scene (and are even close to other bloody footprints), and they have such an unusual distribution so they carry a load of information about the dynamic by which they were produced (bathmat shuffle - no "normal" walk, barefoot, no "common" substance).
Here are two of the pictures of the luminol hits. Let's focus on these for a minute because they are part of the pretense of being evidence of all the rest happening at the same time. They are taken from the hall outside Amanda and Meredith's rooms, so they do have a proximity to the murder scene, but nothing else is conveyed by these prints. There's no way you can pretend to match them to
anyone or even be sure they're footprints. One looks like a mermaid to me.
I can't upload this one (it says it's too big) the only way I know how to do it, so I'll just
link the picture that shows the hall, the two doorways at the end before the bathroom are where the luminol reacted and are Amanda and Meredith's rooms respectively.
Moreover they are absolutely uncommon as a finding itself, since they don't form a trail of prints and belong to two different individuals; and the analogy between them and the bathmat print can't go unnoticed.
The reason for them having such an uneven distribution and not forming a trail of prints is quite likely because they weren't made as a part of the same journey; you cake a floor with luminol and stuff is going to light up, there's no way of know
when they happened, or even that the same substance caused the luminol to react. It's very much like looking at a carpet and trying to tie each stain to the murder (despite the fact they test negative for blood!) and then saying because they don't form a trail and it seems more than one individual made them they then 'must' (or even 'could') be related
directly to the murder and not have happened before or after as a part of the discovery, or in this case the (
real) forensic investigation conducted by the
Polizia Scientifica six weeks before the clowns in bunny suits came back and sprayed the floors with luminol and tried to pretend it all must be evidence from the murder itself.
And - you will say by coincidence - they perfectly fit in a scenario where "stagers" (the offenders) come back to the murder scene, employ bloody towels to move and walk/shuffle in the murder room (where they leave traces of dragging but no bloody footprint) and then they wash themselves in the bathroom. They are unable to wash the carpet (thus there is only one footprint left).
Look how the unusual, unexplained luminol footprints can be easilly connected both to the towels (other unusual element) and to the bloody bathmat print.
They don't 'perfectly fit'
anything, they're stains in a hallway found six weeks after a murder where they've been walked on by literally more than a dozen people, probably a hundred or more separate times. Any one of those instances could transfer DNA or even blood particles from the bloody shoe prints, or from traces in the murder room, or trace DNA from any of the residents either from their own passage or being tracked by someone else's--perhaps someone wearing booties who didn't change them in the hall because they were
done with that area.
Your 'logical method' apparently consists in deleting all these apparent logical links. You fail to "test" a bathmat shuffle / staging scenario ti see if it fits the luminol prints. You overlook the "coincidence" that they produce.
There's
no coincidence in finding DNA from someone who
lives there in the hall outside their rooms. There's nothing all that surprising in laying down luminol and getting hits, from this very same case there were about as many hits found at Raffaele's that had nothing to do with the murder. Spray luminol in your bathroom and hall and odds are you'll get something to light up, it doesn't mean anyone was murdered there!
My point is that you can get luminol hits without any murder, and
in addition that if you have had a murder yards away from where you're spraying luminol you might well pick up trace elements if that area was accessed by numerous people having walked over blood traces left and in that area, some of which were inches or feet (Rudy's barely visible bloody shoeprints right down this hall) away. Thus
even if those hits were caused by highly diluted blood it is far more likely they were the result of someone who got something on their shoes/booties and moisture than they survived all that tromping around
completely intact from the murder.
While on the other hand you consider the fact that you "can't explain them" as unimportant; you falsely compare them to things which instead you can easilly explain through plausible and simple events, and which don't carry any particular information.
The bathmat boogie is itself not incriminating, but should serve as a heuristic and illustration of how those luminol hits could have been caused by any number of scenarios after the murder, and any DNA found could easily have been from before the murder. Thus
even if those luminol hits were highly diluted blood there's nothing incriminating about them.
