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

[TruthCalls]

Nick Pisa wrote for the UK gossip rag, the DAILY MAIL. That wouldn't affect the trial in a different country/different jurisdiction. When it was done in Italy in the Italian press, of course those people seeking to subvert justice were charged. In the UK you would also be slapped with a Contempt of Court notice should you try to influence a trial similarly there. (This happened in a recent case, when someone wrote an article for Washington Post seeking to undermine the evidence in a complex medical case. The entire article was blocked from being read in the UK. Journalists who wanted to run the 'alternative evidence' stuff, including a columnist in PRIVATE EYE and some guy in the Netherlands, were all threatened with having charges pressed against them if they persisted.) There is nothing unique about Mignini slapping charges in Italy on the editor of WSH or AK's parents for doing something similar in Italy whilst the case was live.

It seems very naive and teenager-ish to believe Mignini did anything differently than prosecutors in any other civilised western country.

BS. The Italian media was publishing all the lies by the police just like the rest of the media did. Who was going to charge the media in Italy when all they were doing was publishing what the police were telling them?

And as I said, Mignini USED the DM article about Amanda's noisy party IN COURT. So yes, crap written in another country DID affect a trial in Italy.

WHO gave the media the pink bathroom photo? I'll help you... the police. And WHO didn't correct the media when they published stories - EVEN in Italy - that indicated that's what the bathroom looked like when Amanda came home that morning. Again, I'll help you - the police. Shall we get into the sex orgy claims, or the seven partners since coming to Italy, or the 'Riot of Seattle' noisy party lie, or the...

Sorry, the claim is the police influenced public opinion, which clearly had an effect on the courts as lay judges are not sequestered and were reading this crap for two years before convicting Amanda. You wanted to argue Amanda waging a PR campaign. You've still not posted a single instance where Marriott pushed a false narrative on the public, and you have no response to the police doing that constantly in the first couple of years following the murder. Your denials don't change the facts.

 

[TruthCalls]

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

If you're going to argue POTENTIAL contamination, the burden is on you to show where the forensic investigation failed to follow normal procedures designed to mitigate the risk of contamination. So when some untrained cop removes a knife from a sterile collection bag and places it in a non-sterile box sitting on the cops desk, in the police station, that is a major failure. We can't see DNA, so we have no way of knowing if DNA from Meredith was present on his desk, but it doesn't matter. The failure was by the SP. They created the possibility. Full stop. Likewise, you don't pick an item of evidence up with visibly dirty gloves, fondle it, pass it around, put it back down on the ground to photograph (which, BTW.. can ANYONE come up with even the most ridiculous explanation for why they did that?) and then claim it's pristine evidence. This gets worse when you incorrectly store it, thereby destroying it so it can never be tested again.

But I get it... you guys like what they concluded from these two massive forensic blunders, so in a classic 'ends justify the means', you think the SP did nothing wrong, and if the defense can't offer proof Meredith's DNA made it onto these items of evidence due to these massive blunders, then we're supposed to ignore the blunders and consider the evidence valid. Thankfully this isn't how it works in most other civilized countries.

 

[Stacyhs]

I know you're not. We'll come back to that.


I know why she was, and it's been explained to you. You're just parroting the guilter lie that it was because she attempted to interfere in the investigation, and you even linked to a source that you falsely claimed proved that.


I am quite aware of that. But you quoted him, claiming that he could offer "insight" into the case. So, if you were intellectually honest, you would understand that you need to be able either to defend his claims, or else acknowledge that he's not as insightful as you imagine he is.

Further, one of the cornerstones of your argument that Amanda is still factually guilty of murder despite her acquittal is your claim of Mafia influence on the Court of Cassation. In order for that to make any sense, you have to be able to explain why the Mafia would care enough to do this. The standard guilter excuse is that Raffaele is connected to the Mafia because he has the same last name as a moderately prominent (now-deceased) Italian-Canadian mafioso who happens to have been born in the same town, and guilters have manufactured some bogus evidence, such as the "church door" photo.

Conversely, I claim that there is no [ETA: credible] evidence that Raffaele or his family were ever connected with the Mafia, and I claim that the fact that his sister was accepted as lieutenant in the Carabinieri is proof that they were not.


See above.


@Myriad read your post the same way I did, and I'll bet other posters did, too. So that's on you.

I also read it the same way.

Whether it seems to you is irrelevant.
The DNA from saliva, sweat, blood, skin is identical. Steffanoni testified to this. You cannot identify the source of the DNA from the DNA. That is a scientific fact. That is why there is a great deal of literature on testing for blood. That is why Staffanoni tested for blood. This is a false idea that has lodged in your brain. Blood is not particularly high in DNA, it is mostly red blood cells that contain no DNA, platelets that contain no DNA and serum (liquid) that contains no DNA. The DNA is contained in white cells which are only a small faction of blood.

Please provide a reference that says in a forensic situation DNA can be used to identify the source of the DNA.

FWIW I'll reference one of the world's top experts on the forensic use of DNA. You should read his expert opinion.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316300333

Regarding the highlighted: this is why the Marasca court's conclusion that Amanda "washed her hands of Meredith's blood" is not supported by any scientific evidence. It's why no supporting evidence of this was ever presented in court. It's one of those 'judicial facts' that the PGP love so much that is not, in reality, a 'fact' at all.

Referencing Gill is a waste of time for Vixen. He's one of the defense's army of "bent-paid off-incompetent" people.

 

[Welshman]

BS. The Italian media was publishing all the lies by the police just like the rest of the media did. Who was going to charge the media in Italy when all they were doing was publishing what the police were telling them?

And as I said, Mignini USED the DM article about Amanda's noisy party IN COURT. So yes, crap written in another country DID affect a trial in Italy.

WHO gave the media the pink bathroom photo? I'll help you... the police. And WHO didn't correct the media when they published stories - EVEN in Italy - that indicated that's what the bathroom looked like when Amanda came home that morning. Again, I'll help you - the police. Shall we get into the sex orgy claims, or the seven partners since coming to Italy, or the 'Riot of Seattle' noisy party lie, or the...

Sorry, the claim is the police influenced public opinion, which clearly had an effect on the courts as lay judges are not sequestered and were reading this crap for two years before convicting Amanda. You wanted to argue Amanda waging a PR campaign. You've still not posted a single instance where Marriott pushed a false narrative on the public, and you have no response to the police doing that constantly in the first couple of years following the murder. Your denials don't change the facts.

Besides the fake story about showering in a blood bathroom, there were other instances when the prosecution fed false information to the media regarding the purchase of bleach receipts, a missing Harry Potter book and the washing machine running when the postal arrived. The lies are detailed in the link below. The fact that guilters condone these lies shows the industrial scale hypocrisy of guilters :-

*Guilters criticise the PR firm hired by Amanda’s parents for prejudicing trials but have no issue with the prosecution feeding lies to the media which could prejudice the trial and work against Amanda and Raffaele.

*Guilter criticise Amanda for using a PR firm but have no issue with prosecution using the media as a PR tool by publishing damaging lies.

*Guilters viciously attack Amanda Raffale for telling numerous lies but have no issue with the prosecution telling numerous lies as these lies worked against Amanda and Raffaele.

*Guilters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime but have no issue with the prosecution using false information to imply Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith.



Lies & Misinformation

 

[Stacyhs]

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

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

 

[Myriad]

What 'false' and 'unbiased' announcements to the press were made by the prosecution? Bearing in mind even the ECHR says the press are entitled to report on an ongoing case.

Think about a recent US case - or any US murder case - can you think of one that was decided by the prosecutor and not the court? None? Why would Italy be any different?


Might I suggest a more rational and real world view? The case was reviewed by ten different judges before it even reached Giancarlo Massei. Each of the courts that dealt with the merits, Massei and Nencini had two main judges and six lay judges. The tradition in a tribunal style panel - as is the case in Napoleonic/Roman Law Europe - is to have three of the judges on one side (sympathetic to the defence case) and three on the other (sympathetic to the prosecution case). The case went through Massei, Hellmann, Chieffi, Nencini and Marasca-Bruno. Do you really believe the deluded and ridiculous fairy story perpetuated by AK that she was the victim of one prosecutor: Dr Mignini, when he wasn't even there after Massei? I think people who believe AK was 'only convicted because of a rogue prosecutor' are easily scammed.

You can suggest anything you want. Maybe suggest working ninjas into the story if that's the fiction you want to tell. What does it matter what I, you, or anyone else believes? What you're arguing about amounts to a Wikipedia article about a remote event from a bygone decade. Right now, and far into the future, that happens to be a story about malicious and incompetent prosecution of innocent people, which is something few people have any sympathy for once the history comes to light.

Consider the honest well-intentioned prosecutors in Salem, MA in the 1690s who worked so hard to keep the citizens safe from evil. It's so unfair that they ended up vilified just because they killed 25 people, when there was clear testimony and forensic evidence that witches were fraternizing with Satan himself and using the maleficent powers they gained thereby to spectrally assault and torture innocent young girls. The judgment of history is so unfair sometimes! Especially to the ones convinced they're contending against Satan personally, like Ol' Bill Stoughton or Magistrato Giuliano Mignini.

 

[Stacyhs]

Really? So how were the experts able to identify Guede only left epithilial cells?



.

They can identify if there is seminal fluid present. There was not...at least not in Meredith's vagina. So, they knew it wasn't DNA from semen. As previously stated, they assumed the DNA was from epithelial cells, not because they had scientific evidence for it. They assumed it in the same way they assumed Amanda's DNA in the sink was from "washing her hands of Meredith's blood."

 

[Vixen]

You can suggest anything you want. Maybe suggest working ninjas into the story if that's the fiction you want to tell. What does it matter what I, you, or anyone else believes? What you're arguing about amounts to a Wikipedia article about a remote event from a bygone decade. Right now, and far into the future, that happens to be a story about malicious and incompetent prosecution of innocent people, which is something few people have any sympathy for once the history comes to light.

Consider the honest well-intentioned prosecutors in Salem, MA in the 1690s who worked so hard to keep the citizens safe from evil. It's so unfair that they ended up vilified just because they killed 25 people, when there was clear testimony and forensic evidence that witches were fraternizing with Satan himself and using the maleficent powers they gained thereby to spectrally assault and torture innocent young girls. The judgment of history is so unfair sometimes! Especially to the ones convinced they're contending against Satan personally, like Ol' Bill Stoughton or Magistrato Giuliano Mignini.

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




.

 

[Myriad]

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

Do you perceive some kind of similarity between a prosecutor in Italy in 2009 falsely convicting innocent people based on the unevidenced belief that the defendants were Satanic occultists performing evil rituals, and a prosecutor in Massacusetts in 1692 falsely convicting innocent people based on the unevidenced belief that the defendants were Satanic occultists performing evil rituals?

That's an interesting idea; thanks for bringing it up.

For my part I was only talking about how harsh the judgment of history is to corrupt prosecutors who convict innocent people. Well over three centuries later, people in northeastern Massachusetts still enjoy dancing on the witchcraft prosecutors' graves, especially around Samhain Halloween. It's good fun.

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

 

[Disbelief]

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




.

That's what you took from his analogy? I would say you were wide of the mark, but that would be an understatement. Either that, or it is a deliberate "misunderstanding" so you can deflect.

 

[Vixen]

Do you perceive some kind of similarity between a prosecutor in Italy in 2009 falsely convicting innocent people based on the unevidenced belief that the defendants were Satanic occultists performing evil rituals, and a prosecutor in Massacusetts in 1692 falsely convicting innocent people based on the unevidenced belief that the defendants were Satanic occultists performing evil rituals?

That's an interesting idea; thanks for bringing it up.

For my part I was only talking about how harsh the judgment of history is to corrupt prosecutors who convict innocent people. Well over three centuries later, people in northeastern Massachusetts still enjoy dancing on the witchcraft prosecutors' graves, especially around Samhain Halloween. It's good fun.

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

Fortunately, in Perugia 2007 it was not the prosecutor who did the convicting.




.

 

[Vixen]

That's what you took from his analogy? I would say you were wide of the mark, but that would be an understatement. Either that, or it is a deliberate "misunderstanding" so you can deflect.

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

Let's avoid trite clichés.




.

 

[Stacyhs]

Guede never denied he was there.

But he did. In his Nov. 18 Skype call with Benedetti he wrote:

RG: Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that. I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before.
GB:
But your photo is everywhere.
RG:
I've seen it, the police were wrong to put my photo around like that. I'm not how they describe me. I have nothing to do with that night.

Not only does he deny being there at all, but he admits to having seen his photograph in the media on Nov. 18. But you still won't admit the Knox saw his name in the TV news on Nov. 20 before Curt's visit, will you?

He never covered up any of his presence.

Apparently, unlike Knox, he didn't have special glasses that could detect invisible DNA and fingerprints, a DNA analysis kit, or a fingerprint identification database.

There is no trace of him in Filomena's room, which there would be if he had come in through the window, having trod on muddy ground and had smashed the window, plus there would be skin scrapes and blood from the shards. But there is none.

You are making an assumption not based in fact. There have been countless burglars who made access through a broken window who did not leave skin scrapes or blood.
As for the "muddy ground", the area was covered in leaves and other foliage.

He was never wearing 'burglars gloves' or he would have continued to hide his DNA and fingerprints.

That may have been his intention. Logically, he'd have removed them (and likely stuck them in his jacket pocket) in order to clean himself with tissue. But, upon being surprised hearing Meredith come home, he forgot to put them back on. We know he wasn't wearing them when he left his bloody handprint.

In addition burglars poop in the middle of the floor.

Oh, for God's sake. It took 2 minutes to find three separate cases of a burglar leavin feces in the toilet.
Burglar Leaves Behind 'Large Bowel Movement' In Toilet

Thief Uses Toilet During Break-In, Doesn't Flush. DNA From Poop Nails Him

Suspected burglar busted after leaving stinky DNA evidence behind.Many thieves meticulously make sure they don't leave behind any fingerprints. But, police say, this man not only didn't flush, he also left a used piece of toilet paper with his DNA all over it, lying on the bathroom floor.

His account has always been consistent - apart from the actual attack of course. Guede was charged, sentenced and did his time.

His account has NOT "always been consistent". In his call with Benedetti he states twice that Knox was not there, that she had nothing to do with it. He states he wasn't even there that night as I previously quoted and cited. Then he claimed only to have seen a "left-handed, Italian speaking man" with a knife. No mention of Knox. He later claimed to have heard Knox and Kercher arguing over money. Then he claimed he saw Knox's "silhouette" outside.

That doesn't cancel out the sure participation of the other attackers.
https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/thief-...-doesnt-flush-dna-from-poop-nails-him-1735579

Amazing how these alleged "sure" attackers left behind no evidence of themselves in Kercher's bedroom. Oh, wait...I forgot: Knox used her special glasses that detected invisible DNA and fingerprints and then her portable DNA analysis kit and accessed the fingerprint database so she could clean up only her and Sollecito's evidence. But she made sure to leave Guede's so she could "cover for him" later by implicating Lumumba. Criminal masterminds!

 

[Stacyhs]

Has anyone ever said the press didn't have the right to report on an ongoing investigation? Of course not, so why make the comment?

What we've been saying is the prosecution was feeding the press lies and speculation and allowing the media to not only report on that, but then to embellish it further. As Pisa said, he was looking to get the most salacious headlines out as quickly as possible, the truth be damned. A prime example being the infamous pink bathroom photo. The police released that photo to the media, and they did not correct the media when it was reported that was what the bathroom looked like when Amanda came home and showered. And if Mignini was interested in the truth, why did he use the false DM article about Amanda's loud party citation when he had to know it was false? And if he didn't know the details of what happened and simply ran with a DM article because it fit his narrative, then that's even more evidence of his incompetence.

It was a clear and obvious abuse by the police to turn the public against Amanda, and boy did it work. Even to this day I read comments by people claiming she's guilty, and citing this very same pink bathroom photo as evidence of her guilt. Yet all you can ever do is talk of the "massive PR campaign" by Marriott, even though you've still failed to cite a single lie pushed by Marriott.

Don't forget the anonymous "policeman" who declared Knox "smelled like sex" the morning of Nov. 2!

 

[Myriad]

Fortunately, in Perugia 2007 it was not the prosecutor who did the convicting.

No one was convicted anywhere in 2007 for Kercher's murder, so that's not surprising.

More generally, though, don't imagine that the judgment of history swings on such technicalities. Benedict Arnold was never convicted of treason by any court of any American colony (Federal courts not even existing at all at the time, of course). Doesn't stop him from being known as the greatest traitor in American history.

Corrupt Satanic-panic-monger Mignini will never be anywhere near that notorious, but it's nice to see you're doing your part to make him and the injustices done by his court as infamous as possible by repeating the prosecution's every lie year after year.

 

[Stacyhs]

Of course, DNA is DNA. The issue in question is, is it possible for expert geneticists to identify where that DNA originates. Clearly, they can, and this is via the quality of the RFU peaks. Blood derived DNA shows higher peaks.

Wrong. If high RFU peak heights mean blood is present, then why do "expert geneticists" continue to use TMB and other blood specific tests instead of "RFU peak heights" to determine if blood is present?
Yes, blood does produce high RFU peak heights, but so do other DNA sources.

Luminol is used by forensic police to highlight blood. The only other material that might affect luminol are some fruit juices such as turnip or grass.

Why do you make up such easily disproved factoids? I'm not going to bother providing the many things luminol reacts to as they've been provided numerous times before.

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

No one has presented that 'alternative' idea. It's a your own left-field long-shot nice-try desperate attempt at distorting the fact that all NINE tested negative for blood.

Given there was blood all over the floor, as reported by Guede, who in his earliest statement - I believe via FB to Benedetti - says that he didn't know how AK managed to sleep in the apartment, as the entire hallway was covered in blood. You note whoever cleaned up, made sure to leave signs of RG's shoe prints, albeit only one set.

I've read some crazy claims but this one is in the top 5. So somehow, all the blood in the hallway was so successfully removed that luminol didn't detect any, EXCEPT for Guede's faint bloody shoeprints AND the invisible to the naked eye footprints. What did they clean it up with? Certainly not the mop that tested negative for Kercher's DNA or human blood. Oh, wait...I forgot: they bought a NEW mop to replace the old one. Same style and everything! Wow. They are GOOD!
Wait...they left Guede's shoeprints on purpose. Was that part of Knox's covering for him?

Unfortunately, this backfired for the phantom cleaners, as RG's shoeprints show him heading out of Mez' room straight for the front door on his way out. No stopping to lock Mez' door or pull it to, for which he'd need to face the door.

Was Guede incapable of turning at the waist?

But we do see both AK's and RS's footprints highlighted by luminol facing Mez' door.

Ah, yes...Amanda's footprint, supposedly in Kercher's blood, that tested negative for blood and negative for Kercher's DNA. The same footprint that did not contain any DNA at all, not even Knox's. The same footprint that was found to only be "compatible" with Knox's foot but was never compared to the foot of the other girls living there.

Raffaele's footprint was NOT "facing MK's door":
"Exhibit 2, collected in the corridor directed outward, is a right footprint, compatible with the one of reference, obtained from Sollecito." (Hellmann MR)

Interestingly, there are no footprints of RS leading up to the bathmat, where his footprint is identified - and he has a very characteristic hammer toe -

It was never proved BARD to belong to RS and you know that. You're just repeating the prosecution witnesses. You know the ones paid by the police.

so maybe that is why AK was carefully scooting around on a towel between the bathroom and her room (she claims) after taking a shower (she claims) on the morning of the 2 Nov 2007, the morning after the murder..

Sigh. Knox never said she used a 'towel' to scoot to her room.
According to your comment, Knox used the mat to remove the bloody footprints leading to the bathmat but then LEFT THE BATHMAT WITH RS'S FOOTPRINT ON IT AND POINTED IT OUT TO THE POLICE. That makes no logical sense.

One of the police said he saw evidence of the shower having been used (he claims).

 

[Stacyhs]

(snipped for irrelevant nonsense.)

It seems very naive and teenager-ish to believe Mignini did anything differently than prosecutors in any other civilised western country.

You do realize prosecutors in "other civilized western countries" have been found guilty of several illegal acts?

Texas Disbars Prosecutor for Misconduct in Sending Innocent Man to Death Row

Colorado Elected District Attorney Disbarred for Litigation Misconduct

Former Duke Prosecutor Nifong Disbarred

A good prosecutor is not found by a court to have led a prosecution replete with "glaring errors," "investigative amnesia," and "culpable omissions".

 

[Stacyhs]

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

Let's avoid trite clichés.

Let's avoid deliberately mischaracterizing what Disbelief said.

 

[SpitfireIX]

DNA is not the only evidence. Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. There is an overwhelming body of evidence looked at as a whole . . .

Yes. An overwhelming body of evidence indicating that Rudy acted alone in murdering and raping Meredith.

. . . the all night cleaning . . .

Assumes facts not in evidence.

. . . the phones switched off . . .

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

. . . the frying of the cottage laptops . . .

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

. . . the numerous lies and evasions . . .

The problems with the illegal interrogations have been discussed ad nauseam. It is true that they lied about the marijuana, but that was because they didn't want Laura and Filomena to get in trouble, as you should well know by now. Further, and crucially, it does not demonstrate consciousness of guilt with respect to Meredith's murder.

. . . that renders the PR campaign as totally misconceived.

No. Even ignoring all of the above, there were numerous lies spread by the Italian authorities as part of their character assassination campaign (e.g., the "bloody bathroom" photo) that Amanda's family had every right to attempt to counter.

 

[TruthCalls]

Don't forget the anonymous "policeman" who declared Knox "smelled like sex" the morning of Nov. 2!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

Let me explain.

Vixensplaining. (h/t @JayUtah)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stacyhs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stacyhs]

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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

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

 

[Numbers]

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

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

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

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

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

See:

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

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

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

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

See:

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

Amanda was a brunette.

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

Proves exactly nothing.

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

Is actually a partial print from Rudy's shoe.

Knox is size 37.

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

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

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

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

What Stacy said.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

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

 

[Planigale]

Amanda was a brunette.


Proves exactly nothing.


Is actually a partial print from Rudy's shoe.


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


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

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

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

 

[Disbelief]

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

Let's avoid trite clichés.




.

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vixen]

Amanda was a brunette.


Proves exactly nothing.


Is actually a partial print from Rudy's shoe.


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


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

Now you are making up your own evidence.


.

 

[Vixen]

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


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

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


Assumes facts not in evidence.

Complete nonsense.


.

 

[Vixen]

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

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



.



.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Now you are making up your own evidence.

What evidence did I make up? Be specific.

 

[Vixen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

GCM - Giancarlo Massei; GM - Guiliano Mignini

GM:

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

AK:

Yes.

GM:

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

AK:

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

GM:

But usually, you remember her door being open.

AK:

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

GM:

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

AK:

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

GM:

I see, you didn't explain properly.

GCM:

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

AK:

Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--



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



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



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


AK:

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

GCM:

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

AK:

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

GCM:

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

AK:

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

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

GM:

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

AK:

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

GM:

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

AK:

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

GM:

You didn't see that it was missing?

AK:

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


FM:

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

AK:

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

FM:

The lamp.

AK:

The little lamp, yes.

FM:

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

AK:

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

FM:

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

AK:

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

FM:

Did you open your shutters or were they already open?

AK:

I don't remember.

FM:

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

AK:

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

FM:

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

AK:

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

GCM:

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

AK:

Natural.

GCM:

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

AK:

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

GCM:

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

AK:

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

GCM:

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

AK:

Yes.

GCM:

That was the light that you had.

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

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




.

 

[Numbers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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