Well........ I just watched the SBS (Australian public service broadcaster) current affairs magazine "Dateline" segment on the case:
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601316/n/Justice-on-Trial
Of course the report has many of the usual inaccuracies, but what I found extremely interesting was the "round table" interview with the three main "journalists" covering the case - Pisa,
ClouseauNadeau and Vogt - and CBS producer Sabina Castelfranco. To me, it utterly exposed the ignorance, poor judgement and pliability of the three "journalists". Here are some prime examples:
Wow, you've been on fire lately with great posts LJ!
Since I've done it a couple times lately because this just really rankles me, I was going to keep silent on it as it seemed you covered all the outrage for me, and actually I was wondering why them (apparently) going 'reverse ferret' would would place them amongst the 'idiotocracy'--until I viewed it myself, and there was a line I think you might have missed from Andrea Vogt that caused me to clench my fist. Regarding the 'mixed blood' she said something to the effect of 'I went to some biologists....'
I wonder
just which biologists she went to? Did they ever happen to say
"many of the defense claims of contamination or poor match are "groundless" perchance?" After their own story indicated they'd seen
this?
(or a video very much like it showing the following)
Andrea Vogt Seattle PI said:
A clasp to Kercher's bra -- which prosecutors assert contained traces of Sollecito's DNA -- also appears to be in various locations around the apartment during the video, indicating that it could have been contaminated.
I'd just
love to know which biologist told her there was mixed blood at the scene. I am starting to become almost positive Stefanoni must have said this in court, or privately to reporters if not, because this adamant insistence there was mixed blood
didn't even fool Massei! I posted the relevant sections a few pages back, but I'm going to post the whole damn thing here from the
most important judge in this case, the one who allowed so much dubious evidence through, couldn't accept this one because it was so absurd.
Here's what happened.
Watching that video reveals how they did the collecting, they swabbed not delicately and with precision, but covering (relatively) wide swaths of the sink. Amanda brushed her teeth in this sink, saliva shows up just as well as blood does as is shown
here by looking at table 1 and noting the min-max-mean-median for blood compared to a saliva spot, there's no way to be sure one is not the other scientifically due to the ranges involved, regardless of any difference in mean or median. Table 2 shows how the peak height ratios will be almost exactly the same. Dr. Greg Hampkian is right, (of course) there's no way to tell, just like you can tell from the cigarette butt which is also highly likely to be saliva.
Therefore if Rudy washes up in that sink, using that 'collection method' it is highly likely some of Amanda's DNA which is in the sink will be picked up by the swabbing along with the blood of Meredith. Now that accounts for having blood and the DNA of two people, Meredith's from the blood and Amanda's from her own damned sink where she brushed her teeth and spit on a regular basis.
That's why it is no surprise Meredith and Amanda's DNA ended up on those swabs. That's why
not even Massei bought the idea of Amanda and Meredith having 'mixed blood' in the sink. How Barbara Nadeau and Andrea Vogt could still believe such a silly thing is incomprehensible.
Months back someone posted an e-mail conversation they had with Andrea Vogt in which they quite clearly, using citations, showed her how Massei had made it clear the mixed DNA samples were
not mixed blood. It was thought she finally had it straight, this Dateline shows this is not the case. How they both could still be pushing such ridiculous 'evidence' that was
rejected by the Massei Court is a mystery. No wonder poor Madison Paxton didn't have an answer, who would think they could possibly still believe it when Massei didn't? The only blood of Amanda in that bathroom was the coagulated blood on the tap,
and it did not mix with anything. You can barely even see it in the crime scene
videos (at almost exactly 3:00, 4:00 and again 4:30) and as Massei notes it's very different from the droplets of Meredith's, coagulated unlike the other blood, suggesting it was from another time, notably from her
misbegotten experiment attempting to staple her ears to the side of her head earrings 'incident.'
Watching them sit there, I can only think of
this scene. I can have some sympathy for the idea that they had to report what the police were saying, and even that they might not tend to question it much--at least at first. However now two of them are avoiding an honest
mea culpa by spreading
outright lies about the 'evidence' and in this instance they cannot pretend it is any authority compelling them, it is their own pig-ignorance and reliance on sources that are either incompetent or lying.
There was no mixed blood, and here is
Massei telling them that. He still has to try to pretend somehow that it's an indication of guilt, but in reality it's simply finding Amanda's DNA in Amanda's sink which just happened to be where Rudy Guede washed up.
I think Bob Graham may be wrong, this utter and complete inability to understand the evidence in the case, even when it is something that was refuted by the presiding judge of the case that damned them, is just another reason it may well be remembered, as well as the self-satisfied demeanor as they passed it off as either an excuse for their reporting, or perhaps even an implication that Amanda and Raffaele must still be guilty of something. They themselves are both condemned forevermore thanks to
this pretentious display of hubris, absolute proof that they had access to another side of the story they rejected outright for petty and pathetic reasons, echoing a conspiracy theory developed at a site closed to contrary opinion and which would eventually resemble a hate cult employing methods of the Church of Scientology on the internet, and
relying upon 'sources' from that very site for utterly bogus 'expert opinion.'
There's people involved that lost jobs, who were defamed throughout the ether and to employers, some like Frank Sfarzo, Franscesca Bene, two journalists from Telenorbo, two more from
Oggi, and two people (Steve Shay and Joe Cottonwood) who never set foot in Italy were charged for attempting to report on this case with nary a peep from either of these two, outside a Twitter from Barbie Nadeau when it was revealed that Frank had been arrested. However for some reason
this was made worthy of an article, a 'report' of 'harassment' that could also be considered an opportunity to defame the family of a girl charged with a bizarre crime on scant and contrived evidence. Was there any follow up on this 'story' to see if the accusation was false?
I cannot help but wonder if making provably false statements publicly, like that there was 'mixed blood,' when both have supposedly read the official court document that shows that to be a lie, and in Vogt's case sent lengthy correspondence posted some eight months ago in a previous thread correcting her on the subject, is not better grounds for one of those ubiquitous suits and/or charges that dominate the reporting on this case? It would be a definite lie, one that could be proven they knew about, and one that they both seem to still claim is grounds for thinking--and reporting--Amanda and Raffaele deserve to be locked up for the better part of their useful lives. There's none of those other suits that come close to that level of defamation or accusation, and not only are Amanda and Raffaele still presumed innocent, they're going to be found so in short order.
Then it will be time for the meathooks to be applied. That's an Italian custom too, and there might well be two people feeling
very out of context in Italy when that happens.
Here is the requisite passage:
Massei PMF 278-81 said:
TRACES IN THE SMALL BATHROOM
The traces of blood detected in the small bathroom, which was usually used by Meredith and by Amanda, located next to the door of Meredith’s room, facing Amanda’s room, have already been discussed.
Dr. Stefanoni gave precise details about these traces and about the outcome of the analyses which concerned the following items:
On the right side of the inside doorframe there was a tiny droplet of the victim’s blood.
Also on top of the toilet-seat cover of the toilet there was blood from the victim.
In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith.
Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result.
On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda.
On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith.
On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood.
The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim.
On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made. Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.
The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.
First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.
In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.
The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.
At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda.
While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.
Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.
This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.
Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern. The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another.
It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing). It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet.
It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood. This print will be dealt with subsequently. Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood.
The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith.
