OK:
1. Extra allelles change nothing in my regard for it and the other evidence.
2. Confirmatory testing is sometimes needed... but not in this instance.
3. Yes, fruit juice and other items react with luminol.
4. TMB was negative due to dillution from cleaning/wiping with water/etc.
5. Collection methods were just fine considering the circumstances of an accused trying to muck up the crimescene with boogies and staging.
6. Who's biological matter... I bet AK wishes they would have messed up those BARE footprints some more. Why would RG remove his shoes and leave both BARE prints in blood as well as in shoes?
7. V & L change nothing of my perspective which is Murdered Innocent Abroad instead of Accused Innocent Abroad which seems to be the 'hope'.
8. No, both AK and RS have zero alibi for the night of the murder... even they 'don't remember' what they did or what time they ate supper. He may have had fish blood on his hands/he may have put the knife in her hand as she slept/she may have left the apt/he may have had a water spill/they might have have sex/they may have smoked ONE joint/they may have not turned off their phones/he may have previously 'pricked' Meredith on accident/they may have done some other stuff... but I don't think so.
9. Sure, more computer experts wouldn't mean 'a hill of beans' as far as their alibi... because there isn't any. Don't you find it odd that the search would need to be so extensive IF he was actually crusing the net all night???
Dgfred,
1. How did the extra allele get there? If it arrived in a way that is unrelated to the murder, how can one draw a different conclusion about the rest of the DNA in this sample? Are you saying that the extra alleles in the bra clasp DNA are also unimportant? If so, please explain.
2. This is an example of special pleading.
3. How do you rule out these other items in this case?
4. The published values of sensitivity for TMB and luminol both vary somewhat. For arguments sake (but I will use reasonable numbers), consider the case in which luminol is sensitive to a dilultion of 1 to 100,000 and luminol to dilutions of 1 to 1,000,000. Your argument amounts to a claim that every time the luminol is positive but the TMB is not, we are a narrow range of dilutions. Moreover, it ignores the decrease in light intensity when highly dilute blood reacts with luminol relative to less dilute samples. From the Hellmann report: Dr. Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical [evidenziatore] with other substances, a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.
5. Your answer is a deflection. My question concerned whether or not the police use good collection technique.
6. Either Merediths or Amandas or both.
7. So when two forensic scientists, one of whom was tapped to serve on a White House committee, are unpersuaded by the evidence, your answer is apparently that your common sense trumps their knowledge and experience. OK, so be it.
8. Your answer is more deflection; it completely fails to answer the question I asked. Moreover, it is a misleading description. Both Amanda and Raffaele agree broadly on what they did, but their recollections of the times may well be different. They are each others alibi. If the police had not reaccessed the Stardust file, there might be more corroboration.
9. I am not sure what you mean when you speak of surfing (cruising) the net. That is not what Raffaele said he did in front of Judge Matteini. He did talk about the broken pipe underneath the sink. I wonder whether you are taking Raffaeles 5 November statement as his alibi. I am going by what he said to Judge Matteini and what he has maintained since.
