This video is impossible to refute. And, it's especially powerful given the vile look of the brown, drippy schmutz on the glove. Maybe Stefanoni thinks that the applicable standard is that the evidence should be admitted if you would rather lick the collection glove than a hobo's big toe. Close call on this one.
Who are the evidence collectors in this scene? Are they Stefanoni's people or Perugian police or who?
Well, that's the strange thing. Stefanoni herself - inexplicably - inserted herself into the evidence collection process, even though she's a laboratory scientist. This makes no sense for three main reasons: first, crime scene investigators should be specially trained and experienced in doing that specific job; second, Stefanoni's time and training is far better utilised in the laboratory; third, those doing the lab analysis should be conducting their tests with absolute objectivity and neutrality, and should not have had exposure to the crime scene.
In addition, the whole operation of crime scene analysis at the cottage seems to have had an almost-farcical lack of professionalism. In the UK (and most other countries. I'm sure), a dedicated team of SOCOs (Scene of Crime Officers) moves in. This team is usually well-trained (particularly in the case of murder investigations), and consists of various personnel who are trained in different crime scene disciplines: evidence collection, fingerprinting, photography, etc. But in the Kercher case, thanks to the crime scene video and previous court testimony, we know that the whole process was little more than a semi-organised shambles. We have evidence being collected in a completely unprofessional fashion, by people who seem barely trained to do the work. Specific examples include the infamous mop-wrap (courtesy of La Stefanoni herself), the doubly-infamous bra clasp collection, the apparent failure to change shoe covers and gloves appropriately, and the unbelievably-shoddy "smear" swabbing of the bathroom sink (which was, incidentally, conducted by the same person who served as the photographer!).
Quite how this huge ineptitude (and that's the most generous description that can be employed) got through Massei's court is extraordinary in itself. But I don't believe Hellmann is as ignorant or as "willfully blind" as Massei. I therefore think that the appeal court will - in addition to throwing out the knife/clasp evidence - also assign clear doubt to the "mixed DNA" evidence in the bathroom sink, on account of the erroneous collection technique.
