Yes, I agree comletely with the stretching to distance Knox from the bloody footprints. That's why I have many problems with information coming from a site where I have seen with my own eyes how they twist information around to make it appear meaningless or inconsequential (sp?) or otherwise distort the evidence. And admittedly, that happens on both sides (in general, on the internet, not saying on here), so not trying to accuse one side.
I think what Yellow is trying to say is that if that is blood from Meredith, why didn't it test positive, or show, that it had Meredith's DNA? I must admit I find this odd, if this is true. I just don't know. You would expect that if the luminol indicated blood, then obviously it is Meredith's blood, so then they didn't it test positive for Meredith's DNA?
I think that is what Yellow was saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, Yellow.
Yes, that is what I am saying, why does not the blood (even it was blood) test positive for MK DNA?i think both sides blogs cannot always be counted on for facts, but here the same basic fact is also pointed out in a pro guilty website, and another pro innocence one.
I don't think it is in dispute that the all or at least the majority of the footprints did not test positive for MK DNA. If it was her blood, her DNA should have been there. Only AK DNA was detected