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

[christianahannah]

I do not know how

Besides, I'm sure you already have them. Also they have my private notes on them and I'd rather not have you scrutinize them

Yes I had them... I think I have them... in one of my drives ... but where ..?

I think you can go to The Murder of Meredith Kercher site and view them there (I am not sure of downloading the SALs there). It is labeled Forensic Lab's Work Progress Log from the Court Transcripts section under the Expert's Reports.

I have them on another computer and if they have not been located on the previous threads I will attempt to do so later.

 

[Machiavelli]

But "those [things] most unusual, senseless, improbable or strange" CAN and SHOULD be "ruled out" when no material evidence of them is ever found, thus indicating that these "[things] most unusual, senseless, improbable or strange" only ever existed in Mignini's head. Right?

Wrong. Mignini is talking about elements which are found in investigations; findigns, claims, testimonies.
Talking about cases in Umbria, he made the example of the Monster of Foligno case, where indications from mythomanics and satanic claims were believed to be among the 'plausible' tracks by the press and by some investigators for a month or so, but in fact there was no element linking that case with satanism.

 

[acbytesla]

No the specificity is strictly related to concentration. Because TMB may react with an array of things but reaction would occur at different concentrations for each substance. So if you enhance the overall sentitivity of the method - that means you lower the detection limit amount of substances - you will lower that limit for all possible substances, so you will diminish its overall specificity.

NO, the concentration effects sensitivity NOT SPECIFICITY.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you can go to The Murder of Meredith Kercher site and view them there (I am not sure of downloading the SALs there). It is labeled Forensic Lab's Work Progress Log from the Court Transcripts section under the Expert's Reports.

I have them on another computer and if they have not been located on the previous threads I will attempt to do so later.

Oh thank you Christianahannah, i'll go.

 

[davefoc]

Halftime (go Packers!)

...
Even if it was the case, why would the possibility those luminol hits were highly diluted blood be relevant to the murder? These are invisible traces from a dilution that wouldn't even have turned water (or whatever) color when they happened and could have been residue from any time.

...

Is this one of the elements of the claim that the crime scene was cleaned up? Miniscule amounts remained after the super clean up efforts that RS and AK made after the crime?

Is it also one of the claims that these foot prints represent activity immediately following the crime? The fact that they have blood in them is supposed to establish that the foot prints were made in close time proximity to the crime?

I am not sure how these foot prints are distinguished from foot prints by the crime scene investigators who got a small amount of blood attached to their booties and foot prints deposited by the inhabitants of the house who happened to be tracking miniscule amounts of blood around from nose bleeds, menstruation, etc. or, as has been mentioned before, footprints that don't actually contain any blood at all.

Is it correct that it was not possible to find human DNA in any of these foot prints?

 

[RWVBWL]

The Stranger and The Inspector

Hi RandyN,
I still can not understand why a police officer said that He Did Not Enter the bedroom where Miss Kercher's foot was seen jutting out from under that blanket.

Whether a cop writes tickets, is a file clerk, an undercover cop, a detective or a Police Chief,
well I'd like to believe that ANY police officer would check on the well being of a woman, especially 1 of whom her roommates were very concerned about her well being, as some blood was found in her shared bathroom, and her roommates window was broken open. Don'tcha agree?

At the least,
I believe that Chief(*) Detective Inspector Michele Battistelli should have been demoted or fired for apparently not caring enough about the safety of Perugia's residents to have entered into Miss Kercher's bedroom and at least take her pulse to see if she was still alive, if barely!

Or did he enter Miss Kercher's bedroom+take her pulse?

If so:
Why lie about it to the Court?

LOL!

Because he knew he'd just walked over the space outside the door that Raffaele has failed at breaking in a few minutes before... and the police chief tracked in Raffale's touch DNA and stepped on the bra-clasp.

Ok, ok.... my suspicious little conspiratorial mind is on overdrive today...

Hi Bill Williams,
So I'm still a little curious, why wouldn't a Chief Dectective Inspector enter a bedroom to check on the well being of a woman found lying near blood who might be still alive?

I found an interesting couple of posts from a guy who attended the original trial,
have a read:

Monday, February 9, 2009
Falling Legends
Trial Meredith Kercher day 3

<snip>
Cleared the background let's go to the morning of November 2, as reconstructed by Filomena and Paola Grande. Everything as we already know.

Amanda calls Filomena to inform her of situation at about 12:15. Filomena calls both Meredith's cellphones. When she gets home she tells everybody that the door had to be broken. She, Paola and the others confirmed that Raffaele says to have already tried.
Everybody is witness that I'm allowing you -- she said that she says in the corridor, officially authorizing Luca to kick the door down in her own house.

The coach Mignini reconstructed again the positions in front of the door (at the purpose to proof that Amanda couldn't have seen the scene). Same deployment as yesterday emerged. Forward, Luca. Midfield advanced, inspector Battistelli. Midfield, Marco and the other postal policeman. Quarter back, Filomena and Paola. Defender, Raffaele and Amanda at the kitchen level.
The door gets opened and the girls and the boys scream THERE'S BLOOD! THERE'S A FOOT! (According to Paola you could only see a foot since the penumbra of the room. But they must have seen the blood too, it seems. Paola suffered the biggest memory trauma from the event, she explained today, having most of what she saw canceled from her memory, only three pictures remain).
They all run out of the house except Battistelli and Luca. Luca will reach them after about 30 seconds because he is pushed by inertia with a foot in the room. Paola and Luca see Battistelli stepping in the room. Paola goes out and Luca stays some seconds just in time to see Battistelli lifting the duvet to see Meredith's face. In that moment Luca turns around and goes to the others in the garden, where the other policeman had already blocked the entrance.
Battistelli said not to have entered the room at all, that he just looks from outside and then goes reach the others in the garden, calls the Police and asks for medical aid and a volante patrol.

As we can see, here we are again: once more Battistelli's version doesn't coincide with the one of boys and girls. If the officer is right, first Amanda and Raffaele are lying about his arrival time, now Luca and Paola are lying about he entering the room or not. What is going on? A conspiracy of all Perugia youth against him? Not only murderers have decided to discredit him, even friends of the friends of the murderers, not involved at all in that crime scene, like Luca and Paola?... Or maybe we should believe boys and girls this time?

For this discrepancy, actually mainly for the problem of the two cellphones, a face to face is set between Battistelli and Luca, and then Battistelli and Paola. It will be spectacular.

And this gem:
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Stranger and the Inspector
DRAMATIC FACE TO FACE
Trial Meredith Kercher day 3
<snip>

Paola and Luca saw Battistelli entering the room. He denies.
Paola's testimony at the end is not very effective because she can't say she really sees him in the room, and gets reduced to the sole deduction that the inspector must have entered.

(And who wouldn't enter a room when there's a girl under a duvet?)

But Luca saw him very clearly. And doesn't have any problem in recalling again, quiet and easy, those 3 steps towards Meredith. What's more simple than that? He saw him stepping inside and going to lift the end of the duvet.
But the face-to-face, for the inspector, is different. Not quiet, not easy.
He was already nervous when he was right, about the cellphones. Now he's agitated, he loses his temper all the time, shaking his head and body as if he was trying to escape from a nightmare, interrupting the questions with excuses for trying not to answer, like loud Counselor, it's stuff of one year and and a half ago!, tyring to kill the interrogation with I don't knows in a series, stating that he even doesn't remember who wrote on a piece of paper the two Meredith's numbers, now. Now he even doesn't remember if there was a piece of paper. He even doesn't remembers if there were two cellphones anymore. He can't help anymore or he doesn't want to help. He doesn't remember anything.
He had already given a bad impression, yesterday, with an attitude of contempt expressed right on his face or with his biased statements (like the one that Amanda and Raffaele at the police station were whispering to each other like two accomplices). Looking at how he sweats, looking at how he doesn't even try to concentrate and remember, looking at how he tries to put an end to what looks like his torture, he confirms and increases the wrong impression previously given.
Luca, instead, didn't try to put an end to the interrogation, on the contrary, he took all his time for trying to remember, he liked staying there, he was generous in collaborating and in correcting himself.
But the impression doesn't count anything. The logic does, and let's see it.

Lying about the room?
Luca wouldn't have any reason for lying about someone else stepping on a crime scene. And what reason would the inspector have? Maybe the fact that in his report he wrote that he didn't enter the room? Could he maybe be trying to hide a mistake? Could he maybe be afraid that they will think that he makes mistakes on reports, or worse, that he didn't write the truth on purpose on that report? Could he maybe be afraid that they will think that he's not precise, he's not rigorous, he's not honest? That he's not a good policeman?
And why he wouldn't report that he entered the room? Just a mistake or he was afraid of something? Could he be afraid to have left some biological trace and they would need his DNA too? May he fear for some reason that his blood may be tested?


Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100806235950/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html


Something just doesn't jive, IMHO with Inspector Battistelli's testimony in Amanda Knox's murder trial.
Why would a cop apparently lie to the Court?

 

[Machiavelli]

NO, the concentration effects sensitivity NOT SPECIFICITY.

Specificity of TMB is theoretically always the same. But the reaction is believed to be triggered by the different substances at different concentrations.
So, if you lower the detection threshold of substances in the test in general, you will detect a bigger number of substances. You may start to trigger reaction with new substances, which previously would not interfer because they were below their threshold.

 

[RandyN]

The grout for sure. But I doubt rust, juice etc would not clean from the tiles so since something was on the tiles...

Could Stefanoni have stepped in blood with one bootie. Is her foot compatible with the prints

Nope. Good tile installation includes sealing of the grout. This would clean up as easily as the tile itself. BTW blood is not all that hard to clean up especially from solid surfaces...simply flushing with volumes of cold water is usually sufficient...hot water not so much.

The luminol areas must have DNA in them in order to have been caused by blood. It is impossible to be "prints" formed by wet diluted blood no matter the concentration and somehow be absent of DNA. Unless you wish to contend that these footprints included only the red blood cells and no other substances found in blood. Is that what they have proved?

Stefanoni could have stepped in blood but then the samples would have tested positive w/ TMB and they would contain volumes of DNA...so in this case...no that would be impossible...

OTOH, the juice spill blob in Filomenas room could easily have picked up blood from off the bottom of Stefanonis booties...in fact this sticky blob would be a perfect place to latch onto anything sticking on the bottom of these booties...probably even AK DNA picked up while mopping up ...errr walking around in AK room first.

All still proof of nothing...and that would never make it as evidence in a real court.

 

[Kaosium]

Fecal matter does not react to luminol or TMB, unless it contains blood (it should not); as well as urine should not react, if it does you should seek treatment.

Let me google that for you.

I see you found Tobe et al again! What you have there is a sample of more things that give false positive reactions with TMB than with luminol, not a comprehensive survey of all substances. What you also might not have noticed is that despite lab conditions they barely observed a reaction at 100k:1 and nothing lower and that it showed no reaction to bleach and horseradish, which you know isn't true.

That's because they weren't wearing the goggles, just 'near to total darkness.' That study also shows luminol as not being any more sensitive than TMB, which will be the case if you can't see it because you don't have the goggles on.

 

[acbytesla]

Nope. Good tile installation includes sealing of the grout. This would clean up as easily as the tile itself. BTW blood is not all that hard to clean up especially from solid surfaces...simply flushing with volumes of cold water is usually sufficient...hot water not so much.

The luminol areas must have DNA in them in order to have been caused by blood. It is impossible to be "prints" formed by wet diluted blood no matter the concentration and somehow be absent of DNA. Unless you wish to contend that these footprints included only the red blood cells and no other substances found in blood. Is that what they have proved?

Stefanoni could have stepped in blood but then the samples would have tested positive w/ TMB and they would contain volumes of DNA...so in this case...no that would be impossible...

OTOH, the juice spill blob in Filomenas room could easily have picked up blood from off the bottom of Stefanonis booties...in fact this sticky blob would be a perfect place to latch onto anything sticking on the bottom of these booties...probably even AK DNA picked up while mopping up ...errr walking around in AK room first.

All still proof of nothing...and that would never make it as evidence in a real court.

I've done lots of tile jobs Randy, in fact, I'm in the middle of one right now. I'm doing the backsplash in my kitchen. The sealer wears off.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sarah Gino's testimony in 2009

In particular I am less sure that Stefanoni actually hid the negative TMB results than I was before. However, it still takes a lot of hand waving to justify Stefanoni's testimony that foot prints contained blood when she didn't do a confirmatory test and some of the presumptive testing that she did do indicated there was no blood in the prints.

davefoc,

IIUC Stefanoni was asked in 2008 whether or not there were any other tests performed besides luminol and that she said no. Without trial transcripts, I don't see how we can be absolutely certain. However from the Massei report (p. 256-257), there is the following {quote}: With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile..." {endquote} In Illinois this withholding of information would almost certainly have been grounds for granting a new trial (see Illinois v. Lovejoy).

 

[RandyN]

Is this one of the elements of the claim that the crime scene was cleaned up? Miniscule amounts remained after the super clean up efforts that RS and AK made after the crime?

Is it also one of the claims that these foot prints represent activity immediately following the crime? The fact that they have blood in them is supposed to establish that the foot prints were made in close time proximity to the crime?

I am not sure how these foot prints are distinguished from foot prints by the crime scene investigators who got a small amount of blood attached to their booties and foot prints deposited by the inhabitants of the house who happened to be tracking miniscule amounts of blood around from nose bleeds, menstruation, etc. or, as has been mentioned before, footprints that don't actually contain any blood at all.

Is it correct that it was not possible to find human DNA in any of these foot prints?

Yes, well one the dumber claims anyway since anyone with a lick of sense understands that if the prints are remnants from a "cleaned up" job then there would have to be a smeared blob rather than a roughly distinct image.

So I wipe up the visible or invisible prints from blood but they still remain in perfect shape or even as a blob but without a smeared appearance that would inevitably appear in the wiping up. Impossible!

There are numerous examples online of luminol revealed clean up attempts...they are obvious. It is impossible to be cleaned and yet as presented by the police and prosecution.

The only conclusion that can be made about these luminol hits are that they tested negative for blood with TMB and that is confirmed by the fact that no other tests were performed by the ISP which is in fact proper procedure with a negative TMB test. If there remains a doubt in the investigators mind then they are certainly free to do more testing although that would be highly unusual.

The second clue that these were not from blood is the lack of DNA in the prints except for AK in two prints IIRC which means that perhaps they are from AK blood except for the negative TMB test once again.

These facts appear to allude the Italians plus Yummi/Mach.

 

[RandyN]

I've done lots of tile jobs Randy, in fact, I'm in the middle of one right now. I'm doing the backsplash in my kitchen. The sealer wears off.

Not if you apply and maintain it per instructions.

OTOH I grew up on a farm and watched hundreds if not thousands of animals bleed out on a porous cement floor...this was always hosed off later during cleanup. I would be willing to bet you would get no luminol glow in this place since the farmer has now retired.

No matter really since these prints you speak of could never be from blood anyway. Although 2 prints IIRC might be from AK blood since they include her DNA except for that nasty negative TMB test which proves they were not blood... I would need further proof if you or anyone else still wish to contend these are from blood. Do you know anything further?

 

[Kaosium]

Is this one of the elements of the claim that the crime scene was cleaned up? Miniscule amounts remained after the super clean up efforts that RS and AK made after the crime?

Yes, that's part of their claim.

The ones in the hall are right next to the visible bloody shoeprints of Rudy that didn't get cleaned up until the Polizia Scientifica did, one of them overlays it. I posted a picture that includes it a few pages back, as did Dan-O.

It's the one that looks like a cleaned-up shoe print, the others look more like uncleaned-up shoe prints, or bare footprints.

Is it also one of the claims that these foot prints represent activity immediately following the crime? The fact that they have blood in them is supposed to establish that the foot prints were made in close time proximity to the crime?

Yeah, but they didn't bother to establish they had blood in them, why do you suppose that was?

They got a negative TMB and they're still talking about it. They didn't do a confirmatory test like they did with all the other ones and they're still talking about it. They collected DNA from some of them (but the blood was cleaned up below the detection range of TMB? Please!) and they're still talking about it.

I am not sure how these foot prints are distinguished from foot prints by the crime scene investigators who got a small amount of blood attached to their booties and foot prints deposited by the inhabitants of the house who happened to be tracking miniscule amounts of blood around from nose bleeds, menstruation, etc. or, as has been mentioned before, footprints that don't actually contain any blood at all.

They can't be, unless you want to believe.

Is it correct that it was not possible to find human DNA in any of these foot prints?

No, they found DNA in some of the ones that tested negative for blood. They found no DNA in the one that overlayed the bloody shoeprint the Polizia Scientifica cleaned up which tested positive with TMB. Thus we have the common forensic occurrence where blood traces are more durable than DNA.

Here's the list:

Meredith Kercher murder investigation - selected DNA results

DNA test results on latent stains and prints revealed with luminol

Sample Location Description DNA test result

Rep. 176 Filomena's room amorphous Meredith/Amanda*
Rep. 177 Filomena's room amorphous Meredith/Amanda
Rep. 178 Amanda's room bare foot Amanda
Rep. 179 Amanda's room bare foot Amanda
Rep. 180 Amanda's room bare foot Amanda
Rep. 181 corridor bare foot no profile
Rep. 182 corridor bare foot no profile
Rep. 183 corridor shoe print Meredith/Amanda
Rep. 184 corridor bare foot no profile

*The electropherogram for Rep 176 only calls markers corresponding to Meredith's profile, but it also shows what may be a very weak profile corresponding to Amanda.

The only thing the luminol hits (and DNA testing there) prove is there was no clean up in the hall, if Rudy's visible footprints didn't make that apparent already.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, DanO, a poster not as familiar with the intricacies of the case asked about the SAL. I suppose one could cop an attitude and recommend he search through 50,000 posts to find where you have explained it to the peasants, but I think it is more accommodating to assist him by providing a link. As I stated, I have them on my hard drive with notes and translations but I can't very well provide a link to my C drive for him.

FWIW, you can relax on your throne, as I PM'd him and offered to email my copy to him.

I used the information you kindly provided and found the PDF instantly. What upsets me is that this information remains scattered.

I don't sit upon a throne as many of the authors and web hosts do. Very early after I joined this discussion I create a shared wiki repository so we could all have access to the best index of the case data anywhere. I've routinely demonstrated the power of the wiki by retrieving requested trivia on the case. But the wiki is falling behind with so few contributors. I keep finding there are documents that are missing. But guess who has them; TrueJustice has them, PerugiaMurderFiles has them. But these sites were mostly inconsequential. But I find more and more that TheMurderOfMeredithKercher is building a substantial collection of the original documents where they are fully indexed and searchable along side their pro guilt articles. The truth is being squeezed out by the propaganda.

 

[RandyN]

My response to LondonJohn above might also apply here. False negative was not a good term to use. Bleach destroys that which is in the blood that makes it react to TMB (as I understand it) so the TMB result isn't exactly a false negative.

I am a bit skeptical of some of the things that have been said on both sides. Mostly because I form a conclusion and then realize that the basis for that conclusion was not as good as I thought.

Full disclosure: I think it is very unlikely that RS & AK are guilty in any way of this crime. The issues that I am asking about are mostly on the margins of what is relevant to that judgment.

The magical clean up for which no explanation is given strikes me as a stand alone powerful argument for innocence. There seems to be no credible response to that even if Machiavelli has succeeded in throwing some doubt on some of the claims of the pro innocent group.

In particular I am less sure that Stefanoni actually hid the negative TMB results than I was before. However, it still takes a lot of hand waving to justify Stefanoni's testimony that foot prints contained blood when she didn't do a confirmatory test and some of the presumptive testing that she did do indicated there was no blood in the prints.

While the bleach would destroy the DNA it would also cause a reaction with both Luminol and TMB. So you are not exactly incorrect. The reaction to bleach from both would require further testing while a reaction to luminol but then no reaction to TMB would be enough to satisfy the safety that no blood is present...bleach exposed to air would have a limited life that would cause a reaction to either substance.

Stefanoni's claim in court was that she forgot to mention the TMB test when Gino pointed the test out in court. I assume that Gino got this info from the SAL's so I dont understand why Stefanoni could not have refreshed her own memory of this critical detail...in fact it is notable that several key facts about a small number of questionable samples often eluded Stefanonis memory when it was discovered she was giving false information to the court. Darn if she didn't forget her notes about one thing...or simply assumed that everyone understood that she "always" did negative controls and never noted them. Or that she never provided EDF's to anyone on any defense because they had no need for them...etc.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - do you agree that Mignini commented in the video that Satanism can never really be ruled out in a crime investigation?

No. Mignini - summed up very briefly - said that about all things - those most unusual, senseless, improbable or strange - simply should never be ruled out pre-emptively, in advance; as well, they should not even be considered as credible investigation tracks based on speculations, just because an enthusiast investigator may fall in the mistake of believeing he is after something deep, strange or peculiar.

You started your answer with "No." Then you go on to summarize exactly what Mignini siad, which was that Satanism can never always be ruled out.

And he then recovered a bit, by saying as you said he said. That crimes should be solved on the evidence.

The only word i do not understand in your response is the word "No." Because he, in fact, said that things like this can never be completely ruled out. That would be as much of a mistake, so says Mignini, as seeing Satanism in everything because of enthusiasm.*

What's left is this - why are you not embarrassed that Mignini has admitted to using Satanism as something not to be ruled out? This sounds an awful lot like the early investigation of Knox and Sollecito and a crime associated, in his mind, with a ritualistic scenario to do with the Day of the Dead......

..... only then to abandon it when his own co-prosecutor, according to someone who you call a liar Barbie Nadeau, threatens to quit the case if he goes to trial with the scenario?

We are saying the same thing, except you start with a "No", which doesn't exactly fit with your words following....

Why do you defend Mignini about this?

* Who is Mignini describing here?

 

[RandyN]

Can someone tell me in what document the negative TMB tests were finally reported? It is not in Stefi's DNA presentation ppt, nor are they listed in the test results pdf, those just show the positive Luminol tests. Interesting that these results were not reported in these two documents.

No, but good luck finding that one...in the first appeal trial the prosecution was given two chances to come up with evidence that these negative control files were already deposited into the court file. Both times they failed. Probably lost in a garage was one excuse...lol...yes the evidence dog fairy ate them I suppose.

I contend they will never be found because no control samples were run on certain key DNA runs....guess which ones???

 

[acbytesla]

Not if you apply and maintain it per instructions.

You're right. Although maintaining it means reapplying the sealer. Most people don't re-apply. Most of the time they aren't up on the maintenance. When's the last time do you think they applied the grout sealer at that old cottage??

OTOH I grew up on a farm and watched hundreds if not thousands of animals bleed out on a porous cement floor...this was always hosed off later during cleanup. I would be willing to bet you would get no luminol glow in this place since the farmer has now retired.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, but I'd bet you are wrong. OTOH, I wouldn't know for sure.

No matter really since these prints you speak of could never be from blood anyway. Although 2 prints IIRC might be from AK blood since they include her DNA except for that nasty negative TMB test which proves they were not blood... I would need further proof if you or anyone else still wish to contend these are from blood. Do you know anything further?

I agree.

 

[RWVBWL]

What Clean-up?

You guys and your luminol discussions!


I don't really follow this discussion much,
but still I wonder about the supposed all night clean-up that AK and RS did..
Those 2 pix I posted from PS the other day, well I wondered if I could click on them, would they get bigger so I could see more detail of smearing?

Went back to PS thru The Wayback Machine links, tried it, the pix still worked, cool:





Isn't this what should have been found in the apartment after the clean-up?


Here is another screen shot from PS,

A luminol image of a footprint in the corridor after computer processing.

But why, if the apartment was cleaned-up after the murder,
wouldn't that footprint and any others, just be a big smear like in the photo's above?

Why is there still any definition at all?

ETA:

Yes, well one the dumber claims anyway since anyone with a lick of sense understands that if the prints are remnants from a "cleaned up" job then there would have to be a smeared blob rather than a roughly distinct image.

So I wipe up the visible or invisible prints from blood but they still remain in perfect shape or even as a blob but without a smeared appearance that would inevitably appear in the wiping up. Impossible!

You nailed that 1 RandyN!!!


The cops are saying that luminol footprint matches Amanda's,

which I just don't see...

Nor do I see any real evidence of an all night clean-up by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Do you?
RW



PS-This link about trial testimony on The Luminol Footprints is cool,
it even kept many comments after the article that Frank Sfarzo wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20091216...t.com/2009/05/footprint-is-mr-sollecitos.html