That you're unable to tell the difference between commentary and official documents is just strange.

I'm not arguing that it isn't biased, they are clearly arguing for the appeal judge to find them innocent. At the same time they are not going to completely misstate what the evidence is. They may argue in a biased way about what it shows obviously. Do you see the difference?

239 has never figured out the difference between an appeal doc and evidence so unfortunately this point means nothing to him.

Which samples are you talking about? And you're clearly talking out of both sides of your mouth here. The evidence is the RFU value but it's not the only explanation. So it's possilbe it was something else but it was impossible it was something else.

That and there's nothing credible to show Amanda actually ya know...bled.

Have you read anything about the case or are you just back to completely misstate everything I say?

Would you agree that there is an argument phase to an Italian appeal? Do they actually argue based on the evidence during that phase or does it just not happen?

And Henry if you want to argue about the RFU's be specific and cite which samples you're talking about. If you're talking about the sink you're arguing it's unlikely Amanda spat in her sink when she brushed her teeth right?

regarding the one or more attacker scenario

one of massei's main reasons for concluding multiple assailants is that the two stab wounds to the neck (one stabbing type to one side of the neck and a second slashing one to the other side) could not have been accomplished by the supected murder weapon (rafs knive from his place) because of the physical nature of the wounds

i think basically the concept was that the stabbing wound was made by a much smaller weapon than rafs knive. and certainly, multiple knifes used by a single assailant is pretty difficult to fathom.

henry, based on your understanding of the inflicted wounds, is it possible that any single knife could have actually caused the damage, or is the mutiple weapon pretty much a given

There is likely multiple knives. The two major wounds appear to be made by different knives. There is also an imprint of a smaller knife on the bedding in blood.

The reason for multiple attackers is that she didn't fight back. She was in excellent physical shape and had studied karate yet she did nothing to either defend herself or try to escape. She had no real defensive wounds (she had one cut to one hand) and nothing under her nails.

The neck wounds include a cut on the right side that stopped when the knife came in contact with the jaw bone. This was either a 4cm (maybe 6cm going off the top of my head) and she didn't react which means she couldn't move. She then had several light slices across her throat all of which happened before the final fatal slicing and stabbing from the left. Again Meredith remains still while someone did the light slices which would only be explained if someone was holding her head. Not surprisingly hand shaped bruises were found on her head.

Lastly both her elbows had bruising which would imply someone was holding her from behind and that is why she didn't fight back.

All of this happened with Meredith standing so there is no way that someone could restrain her from defending herself and also from reacting to the natural instinct to move your hands toward vulnerable areas that are getting cut. They also had to keep her head in place while cutting her and stab her on two sides of the neck. She was also punched from both sides so that again there is no way to restrain her and do that.

You need a minimum of two people for this attack and unless they are both big strong men which neither Rudy nor Raf were you'd actually need three.

How is the order of the cuts established?

Cro

I'm not a doctor but I assume there is a way between the body and blood splatter.

I don't see how changing the order impacts anything but attempts at doing so make the attack illogical. Like why would someone make superficial cuts on the neck of someone they had already fatally wounded?

Where as murdering someone follows some logic?

Here's one of my main problems with the statements you make. You say the Luminol foot prints were from blood. Then you read further and you find out that's not been proven. You say Amanda and Meredith's blood was mixed and then you read further and find that it was Amanda's DNA, not proven blood that was mixed.

You interpret everything as guilt. Which the more I read seems less certain all the time. Still I appreciate your passion and hard work even if I don't agree.

Thanks,
Cro

1) The prints were made by something that makes luminol react.
2) Someone was killed and the footprints go from the crime scene to the suspect's room.
3) The prints contain the victim's DNA.

If not blood what else would satisfy the above three know facts?

One of my first posts on the mixed blood DNA evidence was that it is almost impossible to determine if there are two sources of blood in a mixed sample. That being said again given the RFU value you know it is blood because what else could it be? Explaining it as anything but blood requires accepting absurd scenarios.

I interpret it logically. There is nothing else the luminol prints can be except blood. When you eliminate all other possibilities you accept the last one remaining even if you can't prove it because it has to be correct.

Henry you are just flat out wrong on this one.

None of the bare footprint luminol hits tested for Meredith's DNA. Further you are unable to explain why the luminol hits tested negative for TMB which is another presumptive blood test. Finally, you are unable to explain why no confirmatory testing for blood was done.

ETA: Just to be clear and *not* be disingenuous I believe there were 9 luminol hits 3 had Merediths DNA but those 3 were not attributable to be bare foot prints. I think that's right.

None of them tested positive for blood with TMB and no confirmatory testing was done to prove they were blood which is just bizarre.

TMB is 5 times less less sensitive than luminol and also will not work if certain cleaning products were used.

This is where you just fail to be objective. The reality is that TMB is highly sensitive to blood. There is a reason they use it after luminol and that is to rule out luminol false positives because luminol reacts with many many substances.

Further it's standard to do confirmatory testing to prove that it's actually blood. This was either never done or it was done and they didn't like the results.

Exhibit 199 for instance tested positive for TMB and Stefanoni did species specific confirmatory testing and found that it wasn't human blood. So she clearly knew that was to right way to do things.

So you have 6 barefoot prints that supposedly light up like a Christmas tree with Luminol even though it's so dilute it tests negative with TMB which is still *highly* sensitive for blood. Then they somehow decide to not to confirmatory testing to actually prove it's blood and go straight to DNA where they find none.

Yes clearly these footprints are blood.