No fact at all. During the trials the DNA expert pointed out that several mixed DNA spots consisted of both MK and AK's blood. I don't exactly which spots, and if it was the one in the footprint or not, but it certainly was discussed during the trials.
<modsnip>. Sure AK's smear (not drop) of blood right on top of the water tap, in plain sight, can not be dated. <modsnip>, if that is not suspicious then nothing is. JMO.
I don't see how you can look at what I typed and think I am trying to explain away the obvious. I, in fact, came up with a stronger reason to assume Amanda's guilt.
Let's try it with your facts: Amanda killed Meredith, and then had a spontaneous nosebleed, or rubbed her hand in her own menstrual blood and then picked up a box of cotton buds. Or, Amanda went to wash off Meredith's blood in the bidet, and spontaneously had a nose bleed that transferred Amanda's blood to her foot during this process... OR Amanda was menstruating while cleaning off her foot, therefore transferring both their blood to her foot.
That is quite a hinky smoking gun you have there.
Remember, Amanda was arrested and searched for cuts all over her body, including in her mouth. So it has to be a nosebleed or menstrual blood or a ton of blood to come from her ear so that it would transfer down to her foot.
However, none of the footprints tested positive for blood. The luminol indicated they MIGHT have been made from HIGHLY DILUTED blood (since the blood test was negative with TMB), perhaps from washing ones foot off in the bidet. They did not do a confirmatory test for blood, so we'll never know with certainty.
As for the blood marks in the bathroom. One would presume this blood is Meredith's since she was murdered. These blood marks were tested and confirmed as blood. Then they were tested to see whose profiles were there, and the result was Amanda and Meredith's DNA. (And the Massai reports states that the tests were positive for a DNA mix of Amanda and Meredith, NOT that Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's. In fact, he states that Amanda's profile comes from the shedding of her skin cells from vigorous rubbing of her foot... that's his opinion of how her profile showed up)
SO
1) Meredith's blood
2) Amanda's DNA present.
The strength of the evidence is that Meredith's blood is present in the bathroom and the DNA that is present in those watery smears of blood is also Amanda's. This implies AMANDA is washing off Meredith's blood from her skin. So you would EXPECT to find Amanda's DNA (Absolutely not her blood) if she was the murderer.
What is so damaging about this evidence is the samples provided DNA evidence but NOT Rudy's DNA evidence. If he is the only murderer, you would think it was him washing off in that bathroom. Why didn't they find his DNA in there? Bathrooms are notoriously bad places for DNA. YET Amanda and Meredith's DNA was found in the bathroom. One would expect if you could find their DNA you would be able to find someone elses if they were there. Seems reasonable.
In fact, the most damaging piece of this evidence is the cotton bud box. So Rudy, covered in blood, went into the bathroom and washed off, and he went so far as to use cotton buds? That's pretty weird. Actually, now that I think of it in this manner, that's really weird and I think it's really hinky.
But your point about Amanda's blood being on the tap does not seem hinky at all to me. Since if there is a smear of Amanda's blood on the tap then it has to come from her nose or from menstruation. And I don't see how that makes Amanda a murderer or ties her to the murder. Really, I don't.