Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[redheadedgal]

In the case of Jason Young murdering his wife, there is only speculation about motive, murder weapon, clothing, and how he pulled it off, but he's still guilty.

the discussion was about roommates. and proven arguments that lead to a stabbing. the above has no relevance to that.

JY was discussed in terms of circumstantial evidence and i pointed out a few key facts that the op missed at the time, making it seem like there was less circ. evidence available then there really was:
--searches for "head blow" and "knock out" were found on his computer
--evidence the videotaping and a door at the hotel were tampered with

there is also:
--a daughter who re-enacted her mother's killing with dolls
--evidence of verbal abuse ("an unmistakable pattern of domestic violence")
--evidence of anger management issues
--mental health issues

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10814366/

 

[otto]

the discussion was about roommates. and proven arguments that lead to a stabbing. the above has no relevance to that.

JY was discussed in terms of circumstantial evidence and i pointed out a few key facts that the op missed at the time, making it seem like there was less circ. evidence available then there really was:
--searches for "head blow" and "knock out" were found on his computer
--evidence the videotaping and a door at the hotel were tampered with

there is also:
--a daughter who re-enacted her mother's killing with dolls
--evidence of verbal abuse ("an unmistakable pattern of domestic violence")
--evidence of anger management issues
--mental health issues

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10814366/

In this case, we don't have computer searches and bizarre behavior of smoking cigars and asking a sister in law to find the body. Instead, we have an unusual call to mom that she doesn't remember, a conversation with mom where she first reveals that she accused an innocent man of murder, a shifting alibi, memory failure, a conviction and a desperate appeal based on providing a new excuse each time incriminating evidence is revealed. It almost gives the impression of wanting to obfuscate.

In this case, we don't have spousal abuse, instead we have comflict between two young women with different values, habits, goals and vision for their lives. There is conflict, but it is not the same as spousal abuse.

With guilty actions like denials, lies, false accusations, absence of consistent alibi combined with a known conflict between the witness and victim, it is problematic for the witness.

 

[Tugela]

Bleach evaporates within days. The Luminol tests were done after 6 weeks. They do this for a reason. That there was no DNA found in every trace only confirms that there was very little blood. The traces were invisible as in cleaned, so there is no chance Knox could have tracked blood around the next morning. Knox should have said that besides a shower, she just so happened to have been cleaning that morning, but she didn't. There is no excuse for the Luminol traces.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

The mixed DNA spot in Filomena's room was on the floor. I don't think it was ever said it was on glass. In the previous appeal trial it was even said it was a footprint. That would make sense, but I don't remember seeing a picture of that spot.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces#Reps_176_and_177_in_Filomena.27s_Room

I am a chemist, so I can make some comments on this.

Household bleach is a solution of sodium hypochlorite (and other things, such as sodium hydroxide) in water. The active ingredient is the sodium hypochlorite, which is a salt that most certainly does NOT evaporate. Evaporation of the water would leave the solid salt behind, so traces of oxidising agent can be there for a considerable period of time (especially in small cracks and pits in the tile surface) even though the liquid is gone.

There are also solid bleaches based on calcium hypochlorite available.

Luminol does not react directly with blood. The fluorescence is produced by mixing it with an oxidizing agent (which is why bleaches interfere). Investigators use hydrogen peroxide as the oxidising agent.

Certain transition metal ions, such as iron or copper, act as catalysts for speeding up the oxidation of luminol by the hydrogen peroxide, which is why traces of blood (which contains iron) makes it glow brighter compared to surroundings.

NOTE: Blood is not the only source of iron in a household, anything that can rust will generate a positive response too. Copper and iron are very common in household objects. These metals are also very reactive to oxygen when exposed to air, consequently any metal surface is going to be covered by metal salts and these salts can be dissolved if those surfaces are exposed to water. For example, your mop is probably secured by copper or iron pins, so using it will spread that around. If your feet were wet and you stood on a metal surface, then walked around, you would potentially leave footprints containing traces of these salts behind. Other redox metals such as manganese and chromium probably catalyse the oxidation reaction as well, but those are less common in a household environment.

The point is that these luminol positive spots could have come from any number of sources which are commonly found in households, they do not have to come from blood. To show that your luminol positive areas contain blood you have to do secondary tests (probably for haemoglobin or some other erythrocyte specific protein) to show that blood actually is there. My understanding is that these secondary tests were either not done, or were negative. They get around that by saying that sometimes a blood stain will not test positive for blood in the secondary test. HOWEVER, if the secondary test is negative you cannot conclude that blood is there, only that it might be there.

You can read more about luminol testing here: Luminol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: according to the Wikipedia article, one of the drawbacks of luminol is that fecal matter will produce the same response as blood and it is a potential false positive. Fecal matter is another substance that could have been deposited as a "footprint" at some point in the building's lifetime.

Getting on the DNA results for these "bloody footprints". This DNA would had to have come from cells. Blood contains (for women) about 4.5 million erythrocytes per mL. If AK left DNA in these footprints it would have to be from shed skin cells from her feet. Any such shed cells would be far fewer than 4.5 million, likely not much more than a few hundred at most. Assuming there was a smaller quantity of "blood", let us say 0.1 mL (which is about a drop), that would produce about 450000 MK cells mixed with the few hundred from AK. That means that there would be at least a 1000 times more MK DNA there than AK's, and you would think that the MK DNA would drown out any sign of AK DNA. The chances of detecting AK's DNA, but not MK's, in these "footprints" therefore would be at least 1000 to 1, probably more.

Every "footprint" that shows AK DNA but not MK DNA would have the same odds, and the overall probability would be the product of those numbers. So, if there were, say, three footprints like that, the odds against it being AK tracking MK's blood would be at least 1000000000 to one (a billion to one).

According to that wiki page you cited there were three "footprints" with only AK DNA, and one with both AK and MK DNA. But, the odds that they would only find AK DNA in so many footprints is astronomically unlikely, so large in fact that it argues convincingly against the prosecution's argument.

The DNA they found is probably from skin cells sloughing off normally from AK and MK that just happened to be in the area of the "footprints", and since they both lived there it is not surprising to find it.

IMO these luminol positive areas they found were either not blood, or had no relationship with the crime. Certainly the evidence would suggest that.

 

[MichaelSmith]

The luminol was lighting up at Raffaele's place as well but no Meredith DNA or TMB positives.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/testimonianza2.pdf

pages 68-70

Bedroom:
outside door handle, two places on the floor, the traces are labeled "presumed blood substance" so they didn't bother to check further (with TMB or another test) one of the ones on the floor was a mixed trace of Sollecito and (partial) Knox

Bathroom:
two places on the floor, one mixed trace Knox and Sollecito the other one Knox alone
on a bathmat, inside the shower and on the door handles (inside and outside (without DNA results)) again the traces are labeled "presumed blood substance" so they didn't bother to check further (with TMB or another test).

In the kitchen:
on a mat and four places on the floor the one on the mat had the DNA of an unknown male the other traces had no DNA and again the traces are labeled "presumed blood substance" so they didn't bother to check further (with TMB or another test).

 

[Tugela]

Well, how can they be finding her "blood", but not her DNA while AK and S DNA is there?

 

[otto]

The luminol was lighting up at Raffaele's place as well but no Meredith DNA or TMB positives.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/testimonianza2.pdf

pages 68-70

Bedroom:
outside door handle, two places on the floor, the traces are labeled "presumed blood substance" so they didn't bother to check further (with TMB or another test) one of the ones on the floor was a mixed trace of Sollecito and (partial) Knox

Bathroom:
two places on the floor, one mixed trace Knox and Sollecito the other one Knox alone
on a bathmat, inside the shower and on the door handles (inside and outside (without DNA results)) again the traces are labeled "presumed blood substance" so they didn't bother to check further (with TMB or another test).

In the kitchen:
on a mat and four places on the floor the one on the mat had the DNA of an unknown male the other traces had no DNA and again the traces are labeled "presumed blood substance" so they didn't bother to check further (with TMB or another test).

BBM

What is the actual source reference used in the link provided? I'm not particularly interested in viewing a website that is agenda driven, but I am interested in the references to better understand the context. What is quoted as presumably coming from the Massei Report doesn't sound familiar. Is the text from the Massei Report? If not, where does it come from?

There were no fingerprints on the door handles. The mat with one foot print trace was in the bathroom, not the kitchen. Is the bloody footprint on the bathmat no longer made in blood ... perhaps it was fruit juice, high iron content in the water, or evaporated bleach from several days earlier that only adhered to Knox's feet?

 

[MichaelSmith]

BBM

What is the actual source reference used in the link provided? I'm not particularly interested in viewing a website that is agenda driven, but I am interested in the references to better understand the context. What is quoted as presumably coming from the Massei Report doesn't sound familiar. Is the text from the Massei Report? If not, where does it come from?

There were no fingerprints on the door handles. The mat with one foot print trace was in the bathroom, not the kitchen. Is the bloody footprint on the bathmat no longer made in blood ... perhaps it was fruit juice, high iron content in the water, or evaporated bleach from several days earlier that only adhered to Knox's feet?

It's Stefanoni's powerpoint presentation and an official court document.

The text comes for me. I summarized the results from her report.

PS, those results are for Raffaele's apartment which I clearly stated in my post NOT the cottage

 

[otto]

Well, how can they be finding her "blood", but not her DNA while AK and S DNA is there?

Of four samples found in Meredith's bedroom, three belonged to Guede and one to Sollecito. One of Guede's samples was on Meredith's bag.

What do you mean with "how can they be finding her blood but not her DNA?" Do you mean Meredith or Knox? Knox's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood. Meredith's DNA was not found mixed with Knox's blood. Meredith's DNA was not found mixed with anyone's blood, and only Knox's DNA fell into Meredith's blood. One of the locations where Knox's DNA fell into Meredith's blood is in Filomina's bedroom.

There is Meredith's blood and DNA evidence of Knox mixed with that blood in several locations at the cootage.

 

[otto]

It's Stefanoni's powerpoint presentation and an official court document.

The text comes for me. I summarized the results from her report.

PS, those results are for Raffaele's apartment which I clearly stated in my post NOT the cottage

Dr Stefanoni is a recognized DNA expert. Her findings will be considered by the appelate court.

Are you saying that there was clear luminol evidence at Sollecito's apartment? Is it footprints? How long after the murder was the luminol applied?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Dr Stefanoni is a recognized DNA expert. Her findings will be considered by the appelate court.

Are you saying that there was clear luminol evidence at Sollecito's apartment? Is it footprints? How long after the murder was the luminol applied?

The answers to those questions are in the post I made about 30 mins ago that you replied to and in the document.

ETA: See the page numbers in my post for where to locate the information.

 

[otto]

What is Sollecito doing during the trial? He is a free citizen. Unemployed for a long time. does he have friends in Paris that are buying him airline tickets? Will he be home for Christmas?

FLORENCE - Stuck at the airport in Florence, while he was in line to leave for Paris, border police checked with the attorney general whether Raffaele Sollecito, accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher, could leave Italy.

Air France to Paris was delayed as officials waited for the green light.

Sollecito is facing the appeal process for the murder of a British student. The prosecutor has requested that he be sentenced to 26 years in prison. Sollecito is a free citizen. Apparently, broke and unemployed, he recently flew to Paris.

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/crona...occato-aeroporto-procura-ok-partenza-1731221/

 

[otto]

The answers to those questions are in the post I made about 30 mins ago that you replied to and in the document.

ETA: See the page numbers in my post for where to locate the information.

I have clicked on the links and I find myself either at an agenda driven website, or looking at an Italian document that cannot easily be translated to English. Neither helps.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Just to clear up how Luca found out how Meredith died and passed that onto Amanda & Raffaele.....no need to rely on the books anymore. From his testimony Feb 6, 2009

Page 22

PROSECUTOR

Look, when you you came out you, having discovered you were there, the corpse in short Know as this girl was dead, that thing, that thing had suffered?

HEADS-So, no, after a while '...

PROSECUTOR - someone said that?

HEADS

Yes, yes, yes, after a while ', here, after it had supervening a car arrived in the scientific, the Red Cross, are Police, everybody, after a while, 'one of the two doctors, I think, of this steering wheel the Red Cross, was not an ambulance, you went out to the inspection, say, within of home qd addressing one of the Carabinieri who was out there the has a little 'described what had happened, saying ... referring both to the fact that it had been their throats cut and the fact that he had also fought, say, and then from there I learned this thing.

page 23 - here he admits telling Amanda & Raffaele in the car how Meredith died

PROSECUTOR

here, do you remember if the urge has talked to the police station, he talked about this story? That What did he say?

HEADS

look, the only exchange that there was going to Police headquarters was in the car, let's say, where he told me asked if she had died, he asked me. I, a little 'stunned by the question, I answered yes. And then after I asked, if I'm not mistaken, as he died, in short, something, and then I explained to him this What I had heard out there. Then if I'm not mistaken He also asked ... I do not remember now, I did also a third question but I've always said in depositions.

Page 28 - Amanda cried hearing the news

AWOCATO-the ultimate explanation and I concluded. On the question Amanda's crying out.

WITNESS - Yes.

AWOCATO - was crying because she was in shock, according to you?

WITNESS - I think ...

AWOCATO - the minutes closes thus: hath cried.

HEADS-yes.

LAWYER - just gave her the news, she gave the news that ...

WITNESS - Yes, that seemed like a reaction to the thought of what I'd say definitely, then if it was or if it was that or the other thing, do not say I know him.

LAWYER - no, do not ask her judgment. She told Amanda: I have heard that there is a girl who is have ... killed because there is a cut on her throat and as As a result she started to cry.

WITNESS - Yes.

LAWYER - at this juncture near the urge was there?

HEADS - was in the car, on the seat behind

LAWYER - and tried to comfort her

HEADS - we were going to the police station.

LAWYER tried to console her for the fact that the Knox she was crying?

HEADS - do not know how to say it to him, at that time there did not know him say, when I said before that he tried to console her I was referring to scenes outside of the house at the time

when we were still there.

LAWYER

However, she first said Amanda cried the

HEADS

first time when 'you were out dalls home, then also in the car. yes, that's where ... that's where I 've seen visually comfort her, out of the house when she cried.

LAWYER - and she seemed right who did so or seemed strange?

WITNESS - No, it seemed normal.

 

[sherlockh]

I am a chemist, so I can make some comments on this.

Household bleach is a solution of sodium hypochlorite (and other things, such as sodium hydroxide) in water. The active ingredient is the sodium hypochlorite, which is a salt that most certainly does NOT evaporate. Evaporation of the water would leave the solid salt behind, so traces of oxidising agent can be there for a considerable period of time (especially in small cracks and pits in the tile surface) even though the liquid is gone.

There are also solid bleaches based on calcium hypochlorite available.

Luminol does not react directly with blood. The fluorescence is produced by mixing it with an oxidizing agent (which is why bleaches interfere). Investigators use hydrogen peroxide as the oxidising agent.

Certain transition metal ions, such as iron or copper, act as catalysts for speeding up the oxidation of luminol by the hydrogen peroxide, which is why traces of blood (which contains iron) makes it glow brighter compared to surroundings.

NOTE: Blood is not the only source of iron in a household, anything that can rust will generate a positive response too. Copper and iron are very common in household objects. These metals are also very reactive to oxygen when exposed to air, consequently any metal surface is going to be covered by metal salts and these salts can be dissolved if those surfaces are exposed to water. For example, your mop is probably secured by copper or iron pins, so using it will spread that around. If your feet were wet and you stood on a metal surface, then walked around, you would potentially leave footprints containing traces of these salts behind. Other redox metals such as manganese and chromium probably catalyse the oxidation reaction as well, but those are less common in a household environment.

The point is that these luminol positive spots could have come from any number of sources which are commonly found in households, they do not have to come from blood. To show that your luminol positive areas contain blood you have to do secondary tests (probably for haemoglobin or some other erythrocyte specific protein) to show that blood actually is there. My understanding is that these secondary tests were either not done, or were negative. They get around that by saying that sometimes a blood stain will not test positive for blood in the secondary test. HOWEVER, if the secondary test is negative you cannot conclude that blood is there, only that it might be there.

You can read more about luminol testing here: Luminol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: according to the Wikipedia article, one of the drawbacks of luminol is that fecal matter will produce the same response as blood and it is a potential false positive. Fecal matter is another substance that could have been deposited as a "footprint" at some point in the building's lifetime.

Getting on the DNA results for these "bloody footprints". This DNA would had to have come from cells. Blood contains (for women) about 4.5 million erythrocytes per mL. If AK left DNA in these footprints it would have to be from shed skin cells from her feet. Any such shed cells would be far fewer than 4.5 million, likely not much more than a few hundred at most. Assuming there was a smaller quantity of "blood", let us say 0.1 mL (which is about a drop), that would produce about 450000 MK cells mixed with the few hundred from AK. That means that there would be at least a 1000 times more MK DNA there than AK's, and you would think that the MK DNA would drown out any sign of AK DNA. The chances of detecting AK's DNA, but not MK's, in these "footprints" therefore would be at least 1000 to 1, probably more.

Every "footprint" that shows AK DNA but not MK DNA would have the same odds, and the overall probability would be the product of those numbers. So, if there were, say, three footprints like that, the odds against it being AK tracking MK's blood would be at least 1000000000 to one (a billion to one).

According to that wiki page you cited there were three "footprints" with only AK DNA, and one with both AK and MK DNA. But, the odds that they would only find AK DNA in so many footprints is astronomically unlikely, so large in fact that it argues convincingly against the prosecution's argument.

The DNA they found is probably from skin cells sloughing off normally from AK and MK that just happened to be in the area of the "footprints", and since they both lived there it is not surprising to find it.

IMO these luminol positive areas they found were either not blood, or had no relationship with the crime. Certainly the evidence would suggest that.

It can't be bleach.

Examination of bleach drying time suggested that any interfering effect becomes negligible after 8 h.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966054

Only very few substances have the same strong reaction to Luminol like blood does. The list is very short and it never makes any sense.
http://www.iapsonline.com/sites/def...mon Interferences with Luminol With Blood.pdf

Because of the specific reaction of blood (stronger and longer glow than any other iron source), a trained expert can see the difference. This was testified during trial.

There is blood all around and the footprints are in front of the murder room. Luminol did not detect footprints in other areas of the cottage. Only in front of the murder room and in Knox's room. Knox never claimed to have put feces all over her feet. Sollecito never claimed to have even walked barefoot in the cottage. The floor was regularly cleaned so there is no reason to assume these footprints were years old. Besides they just so happen to be compatible with Knox and Sollecito's feet, and one just so happened to be compatible with the visible bloody footprint on the bathmat. What are the chances?

Assuming the DNA came from skin cells is just speculation. If one would slog off DNA that easily, the floor would be covered in DNA from many people. That is not the case. It has been proven that they were both bleeding that night. It can't be proven that the DNA came from Knox's blood but it wouldn't surprise me either.

If you can exclude everything but blood then it is blood. The argument 'it could be something else' was not accepted by the first judge, and I doubt it will be accepted this time. The defense has to come up with something better than that. JMO.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Laura's testimony confirming the friendship.

Page 6-7

QUESTION - Look I wanted to know the relationship between Amanda and Meredith as they were, if we can describe them, if they were Always gstessi
Or if are changed-and In that nonsense. Me what he said to one another, if they spoke with you, if spoke with what you said the other, one or the other, so I wanted to know.

ANSWER - In all honesty I was not much time at home because of the practice I'm doing, however the relationships between the girls seemed good in the sense who are the girls that age had a very close to one another, both speaking English for I thought that the relationship between the girls was good, every ways no one has ever spoken of the relationship with the other.

QUESTION: There was some relief-one of the other?

ANSWER - No.

QUESTION - Here are but these relations between the two were always the same, or at some point are a bit changed?

ANSWER

Initially I noticed that the girls came out more time together, sometimes they went, they went to the center together, were walking together, then I saw that each had taken a little 'more of their road, you were a bit 'removed but with no particular disagreements or without special reasons, each trying to do problems own life, but among girls, I do not think there were or at least I was not in knowledge.

 

[SMK]

These "attacks" were not a joke and in were very real. I had oft commented on them during much earlier threads about my concern with respect to them. Nina Burleigh was only one of many that it happened to.

My concern is how easily some seem to brush these off. Is it since they feel that they can "hide" behind an internet user name? If they think that they are very mistaken, and in for a greater shock!!!

I agree: 'Hater'-type talk and behavior is intolerable and inexcusable ( on either side). I agree that ad hominem attacks on Fisher or Burleigh are deplorable. It is also suspect. Objectivity should be the stance.

 

[Coldpizza]

Reminder:

If you copy an image or picture from another site, please provide a link to the original source or the picture will be removed.

 

[geevee]

I am a chemist, so I can make some comments on this.

Household bleach is a solution of sodium hypochlorite (and other things, such as sodium hydroxide) in water. The active ingredient is the sodium hypochlorite, which is a salt that most certainly does NOT evaporate. Evaporation of the water would leave the solid salt behind, so traces of oxidising agent can be there for a considerable period of time (especially in small cracks and pits in the tile surface) even though the liquid is gone.

There are also solid bleaches based on calcium hypochlorite available.

Luminol does not react directly with blood. The fluorescence is produced by mixing it with an oxidizing agent (which is why bleaches interfere). Investigators use hydrogen peroxide as the oxidising agent.

Certain transition metal ions, such as iron or copper, act as catalysts for speeding up the oxidation of luminol by the hydrogen peroxide, which is why traces of blood (which contains iron) makes it glow brighter compared to surroundings.

NOTE: Blood is not the only source of iron in a household, anything that can rust will generate a positive response too. Copper and iron are very common in household objects. These metals are also very reactive to oxygen when exposed to air, consequently any metal surface is going to be covered by metal salts and these salts can be dissolved if those surfaces are exposed to water. For example, your mop is probably secured by copper or iron pins, so using it will spread that around. If your feet were wet and you stood on a metal surface, then walked around, you would potentially leave footprints containing traces of these salts behind. Other redox metals such as manganese and chromium probably catalyse the oxidation reaction as well, but those are less common in a household environment.

The point is that these luminol positive spots could have come from any number of sources which are commonly found in households, they do not have to come from blood. To show that your luminol positive areas contain blood you have to do secondary tests (probably for haemoglobin or some other erythrocyte specific protein) to show that blood actually is there. My understanding is that these secondary tests were either not done, or were negative. They get around that by saying that sometimes a blood stain will not test positive for blood in the secondary test. HOWEVER, if the secondary test is negative you cannot conclude that blood is there, only that it might be there.

You can read more about luminol testing here: Luminol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: according to the Wikipedia article, one of the drawbacks of luminol is that fecal matter will produce the same response as blood and it is a potential false positive. Fecal matter is another substance that could have been deposited as a "footprint" at some point in the building's lifetime.

Getting on the DNA results for these "bloody footprints". This DNA would had to have come from cells. Blood contains (for women) about 4.5 million erythrocytes per mL. If AK left DNA in these footprints it would have to be from shed skin cells from her feet. Any such shed cells would be far fewer than 4.5 million, likely not much more than a few hundred at most. Assuming there was a smaller quantity of "blood", let us say 0.1 mL (which is about a drop), that would produce about 450000 MK cells mixed with the few hundred from AK. That means that there would be at least a 1000 times more MK DNA there than AK's, and you would think that the MK DNA would drown out any sign of AK DNA. The chances of detecting AK's DNA, but not MK's, in these "footprints" therefore would be at least 1000 to 1, probably more.

Every "footprint" that shows AK DNA but not MK DNA would have the same odds, and the overall probability would be the product of those numbers. So, if there were, say, three footprints like that, the odds against it being AK tracking MK's blood would be at least 1000000000 to one (a billion to one).

According to that wiki page you cited there were three "footprints" with only AK DNA, and one with both AK and MK DNA. But, the odds that they would only find AK DNA in so many footprints is astronomically unlikely, so large in fact that it argues convincingly against the prosecution's argument.

The DNA they found is probably from skin cells sloughing off normally from AK and MK that just happened to be in the area of the "footprints", and since they both lived there it is not surprising to find it.

IMO these luminol positive areas they found were either not blood, or had no relationship with the crime. Certainly the evidence would suggest that.

Thank you so much for this post Tugela, you've made the science behind the footprints/dna (and any significance to the crime) much clearer and easier to comprehend.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Amanda wasn't the only one to learn about the sexual assault/rape from the media.... Laura did also and she'd been following the media constantly.

Page 57

APPLICATION In days subsequent she learned some particular, and retainer I speak this of course before the arrest accused of today?

ANSWER No, if I learned some detail was simply from the newspapers or the Internet, but not from Police.

QUESTION: - What kind, details of what kind?

ANSWER - What Meredith was raped and murdered by a cutting the throat.

QUESTION - This is when I learned?

ANSWER - Yes the day after I suppose, from the newspapers, now remember exactly but I was buying continuously newspapers and reading the news on the internet clearly to be informed ...

QUESTION - So let's say she does not know the place at the moment whom he learned the details?

ANSWER - No.

QUESTION - From the Police did not know anything?

ANSWER - No, they told us these details, no.

QUESTION - Thanks I have no further questions.

 

[whoanellie]

I am a chemist, so I can make some comments on this.

Household bleach is a solution of sodium hypochlorite (and other things, such as sodium hydroxide) in water. The active ingredient is the sodium hypochlorite, which is a salt that most certainly does NOT evaporate. Evaporation of the water would leave the solid salt behind, so traces of oxidising agent can be there for a considerable period of time (especially in small cracks and pits in the tile surface) even though the liquid is gone.

There are also solid bleaches based on calcium hypochlorite available.

Luminol does not react directly with blood. The fluorescence is produced by mixing it with an oxidizing agent (which is why bleaches interfere). Investigators use hydrogen peroxide as the oxidising agent.

Certain transition metal ions, such as iron or copper, act as catalysts for speeding up the oxidation of luminol by the hydrogen peroxide, which is why traces of blood (which contains iron) makes it glow brighter compared to surroundings.

NOTE: Blood is not the only source of iron in a household, anything that can rust will generate a positive response too. Copper and iron are very common in household objects. These metals are also very reactive to oxygen when exposed to air, consequently any metal surface is going to be covered by metal salts and these salts can be dissolved if those surfaces are exposed to water. For example, your mop is probably secured by copper or iron pins, so using it will spread that around. If your feet were wet and you stood on a metal surface, then walked around, you would potentially leave footprints containing traces of these salts behind. Other redox metals such as manganese and chromium probably catalyse the oxidation reaction as well, but those are less common in a household environment.

The point is that these luminol positive spots could have come from any number of sources which are commonly found in households, they do not have to come from blood. To show that your luminol positive areas contain blood you have to do secondary tests (probably for haemoglobin or some other erythrocyte specific protein) to show that blood actually is there. My understanding is that these secondary tests were either not done, or were negative. They get around that by saying that sometimes a blood stain will not test positive for blood in the secondary test. HOWEVER, if the secondary test is negative you cannot conclude that blood is there, only that it might be there.

You can read more about luminol testing here: Luminol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: according to the Wikipedia article, one of the drawbacks of luminol is that fecal matter will produce the same response as blood and it is a potential false positive. Fecal matter is another substance that could have been deposited as a "footprint" at some point in the building's lifetime.

Getting on the DNA results for these "bloody footprints". This DNA would had to have come from cells. Blood contains (for women) about 4.5 million erythrocytes per mL. If AK left DNA in these footprints it would have to be from shed skin cells from her feet. Any such shed cells would be far fewer than 4.5 million, likely not much more than a few hundred at most. Assuming there was a smaller quantity of "blood", let us say 0.1 mL (which is about a drop), that would produce about 450000 MK cells mixed with the few hundred from AK. That means that there would be at least a 1000 times more MK DNA there than AK's, and you would think that the MK DNA would drown out any sign of AK DNA. The chances of detecting AK's DNA, but not MK's, in these "footprints" therefore would be at least 1000 to 1, probably more.

Every "footprint" that shows AK DNA but not MK DNA would have the same odds, and the overall probability would be the product of those numbers. So, if there were, say, three footprints like that, the odds against it being AK tracking MK's blood would be at least 1000000000 to one (a billion to one).

According to that wiki page you cited there were three "footprints" with only AK DNA, and one with both AK and MK DNA. But, the odds that they would only find AK DNA in so many footprints is astronomically unlikely, so large in fact that it argues convincingly against the prosecution's argument.

The DNA they found is probably from skin cells sloughing off normally from AK and MK that just happened to be in the area of the "footprints", and since they both lived there it is not surprising to find it.

IMO these luminol positive areas they found were either not blood, or had no relationship with the crime. Certainly the evidence would suggest that.

Excellent post. Thank you. For the sake of scientific accuracy and at the risk of adding to some folks confusion let me point out that erythrocytes do not contain DNA.