I agree, but the defense neatly covered that with PF's assertions that KB had very messy nose bleeds on two occasions, nose bleeds that left blood on his shirt, pants and boot. Who knows if she had messy nosebleeds at home, too? And I doubt that the experts could or did testify how much of the blood between the floorboards was from the previous owner and how much was KB's blood.
I'm trying to put myself in the mind of the kind of juror the defense is appealing to, someone who is determined to find excuses for PF. It seems absurd, doesn't it? But the defense pointed out that KK's DNA wasn't found in the condo, as though this is 'proof' that KK was never there. Hello? I don't see that as proof that KK was never in the condo, I see it as proof that she was very careful during her cleanup to not leave trace of herself behind. She even parked away from the condo so her friend's car wouldn't be seen near the condo, so it's hardly surprising she wouldn't have gone around leaving her DNA and fingerprints all over inside the condo. She had clearly been inside because she could describe things in detail, including blood spots that LE originally missed.
If KK never went into the condo and a mystery third person described all these things to her in detail, then that mystery person also failed to leave any evidence of his/her presence.
It gets ridiculous, doesn't it? This kind of nonsense only works with a juror already inclined to believe PF. That's who the defense is appealing to and that's who I fear.