Friday, June 03, 2011

Explaining The Massei Report: The Mixed Blood Evidence Samples As Seen By Judge Massei

Posted by willsavive

My fellow poster the Machine will follow here soon with another post on what all the sources other than the Massei Report have to say on the five mixed samples..

Perhaps the strongest physical evidence in the case against Amanda Knox is the five spots in the cottage that showed a mix of Knox and Kercher’s genetic profile.

This evidence has been a source of controversy in the case, at least from those who are willing to acknowledge its existence and or validity, and it is my attempt here to explain this evidence as postulated by Judge Massei’s report. 

The locations of the 5 spots are as follows.

Bathroom near Meredith’s room:

  • On the drain of the bidet
  • On the Q-tip box located at the ledge of the sink
  • On the edge of the sink

Elsewhere in the apartment:

  • In a luminol-enhanced bare footprint in the hallway outside Kercher’s room
  • In a luminol-enhanced spot found in Filomena Romanelli’s room

It is very possible that four of these spots were mixed blood of both Knox and Kercher. However, the problem that I see with declaring this definitively is that while we know blood was present, according to Massei’s report tests were not conducted to tell whether the blood was Knox’s, Kercher’s, or both. The only thing that is known about the blood, scientifically, is that it is human blood that showed a mixture of both Knox and Kercher’s genetic profiles.

“With regards to the mixture of DNA attributable to the biological profiles of Meredith and Amanda Knox, she [Dr. Stefanoni] affirmed that, certainly, there was blood content, there being a specific test carried out”¦ Though, from the point of view of other substances (sweat, etc.), no tests were done. Therefore, it was definitely a mixture of biological substances, but it was not in any case possible to determine whether it was blood plus blood, or blood and saliva, or blood and exfoliation cells.” (Massei page 27)

Moreover, Massei also asserts that it is not possible to determine if the blood was a blood mixture (i.e. mixed with the blood of both Knox & Kercher).

“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.” (Massei pages 278-279)

Furthermore, although I have always believed (to a certain degree) these spots to be mixed blood, I do understand and agree (to a certain degree) with Massei’s interpretation or theorization of the origination of these spots in which he does not believe that they were mixed blood spots. In the absence of definitive proof either way, we can not say for sure that these spots were mixed blood. Massie theorizes that the mixes were due to Knox cleaning Kercher’s blood off of her hands and feet:

“After Meredith had been killed, those who had struck her with the knives must have been stained with blood and had, therefore, the necessity of cleaning themselves. [406] The bathroom nearest to Meredith’s room was the environment best suited for this need, and it is likely it was there that they took themselves, and the traces found in the bathroom give confirmation of this, and so, on the bathroom door, evidently touched to gain entry or on which something was pressed (for example, a piece of clothing) there was a droplet of blood, Meredith’s blood (see photos 141 and 142 of the photographic evidence, volume 3). On the light switch (evidently pressed on because, being night time, it was necessary to turn on the light), one can see the presence of a slight blood stain that turned out to be Meredith’s. On the box of cotton buds on the washbasin, bloodstains were found and a biological trace, attributable to Meredith and to Amanda.”

“Mixed biological traces, attributable to Meredith and to Amanda, were also found in the washbasin and in the bidet, and appear to evidence the signs of an activity of cleaning of the hands and feet, effected in the washbasin and in the bidet, an activity that, through the action of rubbing, involved the cleaning of the victim’s blood, and could involve the loss of the cells through exfoliation of whoever was cleaning themselves: the two biological traces thus united together in that single trace described by Dr Brocci and that, because of the presence of blood, took on a faded red colouration, like diluted blood. This trace was attributable to Amanda and to Meredith, both as regards the bidet as well as the basin.” (Massei page Pg 378)


“The traces found in the bathroom constitute, in their overall evaluation as mentioned above, a further element of proof against Amanda Knox, showing how she herself had been in the room where Meredith was killed and, stained with blood, she went to the bathroom to wash herself, leaving, as a result of this action, mixed biological traces constituted of her own material and of Meredith’s (likely the blood which coloured the trace a faded red).” (Massei page 380)

On the same page Massie further theorizes that these mixes were due to Knox cleaning Kercher’s blood off of her hands and feet.

“Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own room, leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda”¦” (massei page 380)

Massei answers those who say that “˜Knox and Kercher’s DNA should have been in a bathroom that they both shared’ with a very valid explanation, and he explains that these mixed traces were deposited by Knox simultaneously (on that night and not over the course of time).

“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 [302] 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.” (Massei page 280)

So, just because we cannot say that these spots were or were not the mixed blood of Knox and Kercher does not mean that this evidence is not strong, as seen by Massei’s theoretical reconstruction. Either way it is clear proof that Knox was in Kercher’s room before the door was closed and locked. In fact, Massei poses a very plausible theory that is hard to argue against, particularly for those who attempt to say that these mixed spots were normal for the circumstances””a key factor in disproving the validity of this theory (that Knox and Kercher shared a bathroom and mixed DNA of this nature is normal) is the blood spot found in Filomena’s room which tested positive for both Knox and Kercher’s DNA.

Note that Massei’s theoretical reconstruction and report in this regard is simply a summation of the testimony of Dr. Stefanoni. I am not of the opinion that Massei disregarded certain authoritative testimony of Stefanoni, superseding her expertise with his own unique theory.

All that being said, what makes me believe that Knox and Kercher’s blood was mixed is the fact that a single drop of Knox’s blood was found in that bathroom. “”¦a [blood] sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox” (Massei, pg. 192). Knox, herself, dated that blood spot to that time when she stated that she “had recently gotten ear piercings that had gotten a bit infected and she thought the blood in the sink might have been from her own ear” (Massei, pg. 70).

Here is a brief exchange between Mignini and Knox during her testimony on 13 June 2009:

Mignini: When was the last time you had been in that bathroom?

Knox: Me?

Mignini: Yes.

Knox: I must have…well, before the 2nd, I must have gone in there at least once when I came home on Nov 1st.

Mignini: Excuse me, but what time did you leave the house in via della Pergola on Nov 1?

Knox: Around…4 o’clock, maybe? I don’t look at the clock. But I know it must have been 4 or 5 o’clock when we left the house on Nov 1.

Mignini: And you were in the little bathroom before leaving the house?

Knox: Yes.

Mignini: Now, the last time you were in the little bathroom, before leaving the house, it might have been more or less around 4 o’clock?

Knox: Around then, yes.

Mignini: All right. You knew that Filomena wasn’t home?

Knox: I knew that she had gone to a party that afternoon.

Mignini: A party. Fine. And Mezzetti?

Knox: Laura, you know, I didn’t know where she was. I knew she wasn’t in the house when I was there, but I didn’t really know where she was.

Mignini: When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there traces of blood in it?

Knox: No.

Her statements on this are important ones because from them we can deduce that Knox had not noticed her own blood on the faucet previous to this occasion””she even asserted that there was “No” blood there the day before.

Also notable is the fact that the spot of blood attributed to Knox was rather large and quite noticeable.

These statements by Knox””together with the blood specimen on the faucet that tested positive for her own blood and the mixed DNA spot in Filomena’s room, one can theorize””says a lot about the nature of Knox’s sole blood spot as well as the mixed traces.

Posted by willsavive on 06/03/11 at 05:25 AM in Evidence & WitnessesDNA and luminol


Meet the FOAKers?

Posted by pensky on 06/03/11 at 10:55 AM | #

SO…..TMB was used on the mixed traces in the bathroom, and proved positive…..and TMB was used on the mixed luminol enhanced traces, and (without going in to the reasons why) were negative? Would you think that was the right assumption?

Although the mixed traces on the washbasin and the bidet had diluted blood, the mixed trace on the Q -tip box was apparently strong.

I just wonder why, if say Meredith and Amanda had different blood groups, the presence of their mixed blood could not have been determined from the Q - tip box trace. Perhaps one just cannot do that with mixed blood? I don’t know.

Posted by James Raper on 06/03/11 at 02:30 PM | #

Thank you, willsavive, for the floorplan and for a fresh look at the blood evidence. The blood of Amanda is a very strong factor linking her to the time and place of the crime. It says Knox was bleeding at the cottage at the same time Meredith’s blood flowed. Massei’s report and your helpful excerpts from it conclude that the spots in question were left simultaneously the same night. Amanda’s blood was NOT left weeks previously nor the next morning during the process of the famed “shower” she took a few hours before the body was discovered (Nov. 2).

I assume that Amanda and FOA use this dubious shower she took as an excuse to say, “Well maybe she jiggled her newly pierced ears as she stood over the sink handling her ear piercings or when she was drying off after her shower and so her blood got in the sink like that from her ears bleeding; or maybe she herself was having menstrual issues and like that her blood got in the bidet the morning after the murder and it fell onto a spot of Meredith’s blood from where the killer had earlier been washing it off himself.” (playing devil’s advocate here, I’m confused really.) Is this their argument of how Knox’s blood came to be on the faucet, in the bidet, on the Q-tip box? at some previous time or by some irrelevant but natural commingling? But how could it then be mixed in with Meredith’s blood? did Amanda’s innocent blood from ear piercings or whatever or some former bleeding time happen to fall right on the spots of Meredith’s blood that (if we accept Amanda’s story) were tiny, barely recognizable spots, so small that Amanda didn’t even see them so she went ahead and took a shower? Yet when she leaves the bathroom, her blood is suddenly mixed in three places with Meredith’s few traces? Slim chance. I still don’t undertand the “innocence arguments”. I hope I’m not confusing anyone. More suspicious still is Amanda’s blood also mixed with Meredith’s in Filomena’s bedroom, from the same ear piercings or other? Sorry, it gets very confusing to me.

We know Guede didn’t wash up, but ran straight out the front door and fled and was not cautious about blood smears or DNA of his own. He left his shoeprints in blood and his own DNA in Meredith’s blood on her purse. He wasn’t wiping as he went, he was careless or panicked. So he didn’t do the washing or diluting of Meredith’s blood with water. But next morning supposedly we have Amanda in the bathroom to shower. Did she really go in there to shower in an attempt to corrupt the crime scene further, to have a valid excuse to have soap and water splashed around and maybe her own earblood or other Amanda DNA in a place where washing of the crime had occurred earlier?

Can Hampikian explain these mixed traces of Amanda’s DNA with blood from a murdered woman? Surely even the FOAkers have something better than “Well, they lived in the cottage, Amanda’s DNA was everywhere, any blood of Meredith that fell from a strange assailant’s hand would land on Amanda’s DNA necessarily”. Yet the same could be said of Laura and Filomena who also lived there, but their DNA was not in the mixed samples.

Blood evidence is very persuasive. Psychological factors can be mimicked or misread, but blood says, “I was there”.

On a more ideological note I think it’s fitting that the mixed DNA sample in Filomena’s bedroom is the strongest evidence against Knox and gives meaning to the other blood samples by logic. It’s an ITALIAN woman (Filomena) whose place brings justice, because it is Italy and their kind guest that have been cruelly wronged by a woman they hosted with open arms.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/03/11 at 05:06 PM | #

Can Hampikian explain these mixed traces of Amanda’s DNA with blood from a murdered woman?

No - and that’s why you’ll never hear Hampikian mention them in any of his so-called “interviews”

Strangely, for Hampikian there are only two pieces of evidence in this case - the knife and the bra clasp.

Hampikian needs to step away from the microscope, talk to some CSI experts, and get a much better handle on how things work beyond the confines of his lab.

The fact that Amanda Knox herself time-stamps all of the mixed blood/DNA samples to the time of the murder is hugely significant and that’s why advocate-for-the-defense Hampikian cannot bring himself to mention them.

Posted by Fly By Night on 06/03/11 at 06:50 PM | #

Ten points below on how and why I am involved with ballet to put those cherrypicked and uncontexted emails that “Bruce Fisher” illegally posted yesterday in their proper context.

1) Classical ballet especially in America is in somewhat of a nightmare situation as audiences dwindle and get older. Some companies have collapsed, others have laid off dancers (how I got drawn in, a dancer was laid off and desperate), and others can no longer afford an orchestra. 

2) I was not always so attracted to ballet (guys in the US generally aren’t) but there are some ballets which when you get to see them at their best by top dancers can prove irresistibly addictive. Watch all the way through the astonishing top video on my main ballet site here now and I hope it really resonates with you.

3) My gig is normally at the macro economic level and has been for many years. I work with governments including the US on concepts and processes to try to get national or regional economies onto a very much better plane and not a lot of others manage to do what I do.

4) The tools and concepts happen to work quite brilliantly for the very small global sector that is professional ballet (net under $2 billion a year) as they can activate and draw in a huge latent audience out there beyond the “inner doughnut” of hard-core ballet fans.

5) Key to making this work is to personalize the dancers a bit to engage peoples’ interest, and the best way to do this is by video. Show their dancing and a few still images, for sure, but what really grabs new people is the dancers’ stories preferably on video.

6) If you watch any of the several wildly popular dance shows on TV in the US the key reason THEY are so popular is because of the dancers’ stories - who these very attractive hard-working people are and what was their struggle to get to the top. Black Swan was a recent wildly popular movie on this theme. 

7) This can be scary territory for dancers in the US especially, as with squeezed overall resources and limited lifetime earnings, dancers so much tend to adhere to a rigid pecking order. I think that problem goes away when the size of the whole pie gets larger, but it is really hard to get any dancers to go first.

8) The Russians especially are far further down the road and dancers can be seen on Moscow or St Petersburg TV almost every day of the week You can see brilliant interviews of Russian dancers in the Interview area of that ballet site linked to above for which there is zero American equivalent.

9) The fact that one dancer chose to drop out is a pity because she had just the right potential and was already proving a huge draw, but there are over 200 other dancers also in touch via email and Facebook and half a dozen ballet companies including two in St Petersburg.

10) The bottom line potential is that professional ballet globally could probably grow its value sufficiently to pull in an extra billion or more annually beyond what it manages to eke out right now - and to do that without being chained to one or two big donors. Every dancer could maybe see an extra million or more in lifetime earnings.

I dont see anyone else with the right modern growth skills stepping forward to provide the right answers for professional ballet - and demanding ZERO back..

This hardly looks like stalking or extortion to me.

Peter Quennell

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/03/11 at 06:54 PM | #


Greg Hampikian embarrassed himself on Kiro FM with this comical analysis of the DNA evidence:

He should stick to the facts rather than regurgitating FOA myths. Rudy Guede’s DNA wasn’t all over Meredith’s body. There was only one instance of his DNA on Meredith’s body. It’s also misleading of him to claim that Guede’s DNA was all over the room. There were only four instances of Guede’s DNA in the room. The fact he’s using FOA hyperbole rather than sticking to the precise number of instances is telling in itself.

He offered no evidence that Meredith’s bra clasp had been kicked around or that it had been contaminated. The defence experts claimed that the bra clasp had been contaminated without providing any proof at the trial. He’s not saying anything new.

He seemed to acknowledge that it was Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife, but argued that it was contaminated. Predictably, he was unable to provide any proof that contamination had taken place.

Posted by The Machine on 06/03/11 at 07:24 PM | #

Thanks Barry; your welcome hopeful!!

Hey James,

Well, that is basically what Dr. Sarah Gino testified: “…a generic diagnosis for blood had been performed [by use of tetramethylbenzidine] and had given a negative result, and therefore it could not be said with certainty that blood was present in the material revealed by Luminol” (Massei, pg. 282). I don’t know what tests were conducted on the spots in the bathroom, but “With regards to the mixture of DNA attributable to the biological profiles of Meredith and Amanda Knox, she [Dr. Stefanoni] affirmed that, certainly, there was blood content, there being a specific test carried out…Though, from the point of view of other substances (sweat, etc.), no tests were done.” (Massei, pg. 227).

Posted by willsavive on 06/03/11 at 08:42 PM | #

Hey FBN,

Yea, I doubt that you will hear Hampikian acknowledge this or any other piece of physical evidence in this case, aside from those two items. Remember, he is working with the Knox family, and he is likely being paid handsomely for his analysis—or maybe he just wants to ride the train to fame (wink, wink)?!?! Now I remember why ethics classes are so important!!

Posted by willsavive on 06/03/11 at 08:50 PM | #

Thank you Will, I bought and read your book on the murder. I must say it was finally refreshing to read an UNbiased book on the case. Your accounting of the mountain of evidence and written style of the timeline should make it easy and evident to the most skeptical that there were three murderers at the scene. And no reason for lying and story changes except for guilt. Thank you sir.

Posted by friar fudd on 06/04/11 at 02:49 PM | #

Peter Quennell is a patron of the arts and an amazing supporter of talented dancers. His support for classical ballet in the U.S. is commendable at a time when the institution is struggling. To love such fine art and dance and to be a bastion of strength to the cause as Mr. Quennell is, is heroically unselfish. It springs from a desire to see the world enjoy great music and dance and timeless stories, to enrich his generation and the next.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/04/11 at 03:57 PM | #

Thanks Fudd, much appreciated! Glad you enjoyed it!

Peter, they attack you personally because they cannot attack the facts that you present. In their attack of you and those who support this site, it was actually stated that we here operate out of hatred and not out of concern for true justice and fair reporting. They do not understand that we report as fair as we can and that we are allergic to unfair, bias reporting. It really is that simple. They support those whose reporting is so bias it is scary to think that anyone can rationally explain such nonsense. For instance, in his bashing of you Bruce Fisher wrote:

“I recently posted an article discussing a teacher and his students that created a video in support of Amanda Knox. Due to a relentless attack on their school, orchestrated by members of the group led by Peggy Ganong and Peter Quennell, I made the decision to remove the article from the internet. The article was not removed because of issues with content; it was removed because I felt that it was unfair for the school to have to deal with the harassment. Even if an employer supports an employee 100%, it does not mean the employer should be expected to take on a cause that the employee believes in.”

It is truly disturbing and dubiously bizarre that Fisher actually supports this goof (teacher). It only takes one listening to tell that there are a myriad, a plethora of inaccuracies in his support! The fact that Bruce knows this case so well, even though his interpretation skills are clearly lacking (in my opinion), and he still supports this teacher’s video is a clear indication that he cares not what is said about the case, only what side you are on. From his support of that horrid video, Bruce has shown me that as long as you are on his side you need not make any sense or you need not tell the truth! 

Keep fighting, Peter, we are on the right side of history here and time will crush those who live by the spin and the lies…

Posted by willsavive on 06/04/11 at 07:11 PM | #

Hi Will,

Bruce Fisher clearly doesn’t mind providing a link to a YouTube video that contains demonstrably false claims about the case. That tells you everything you need to know about Bruce Fisher’s integrity.

Posted by The Machine on 06/04/11 at 07:19 PM | #

Yes, Machine, agreed! Very sad!

Posted by willsavive on 06/04/11 at 08:04 PM | #

@Will Savive citing Bruce Fisher:

“I recently posted an article discussing a teacher and his students that created a video in support of Amanda Knox. Due to a relentless attack on their school, orchestrated by members of the group led by Peggy Ganong and Peter Quennell, I made the decision to remove the article from the internet. The article was not removed because of issues with content; it was removed because I felt that it was unfair for the school to have to deal with the harassment. Even if an employer supports an employee 100%, it does not mean the employer should be expected to take on a cause that the employee believes in.”

If I understand correctly, Bruce Fisher now equates posting criticisms of his tactics and exposing the false information contained in a film made by a member of IIP and published in the internet as a form of harassment.

That is a very interesting admission on his part.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 06/04/11 at 08:51 PM | #

A note to the posters here concerning Peter Quennell’s situation. I understand he has many personal friends here and I appreciate the loyalty they’re showing him. I don’t know him personally but coming here from Huffington Post, I saw the ‘ballerina’ related attacks begin more than a month ago, when I (and others) was referring people to TJMK and PMF (they even accused me of being Peggy Ganong, lol)
I had no problem defending him on principle, that whatever happens in people’s personal lives have no bearing on the fine work done by the many volunteers on both sites.
Having said that, I’d remind people this: these sites perform a greater service than that involving the admins and site owners. They are world wide resources for any one wanting to get a balanced view on workings of the Italian Judiciary system that convicted Guede, Knox and Sollecito. These are memorials for Meredith Kercher, to ensure that justice is done.
Its sad, but that’s the way it is, that PR firm Gogerty Marriot appears to be using stalking horses to discredit these sites. The work done here is really a credit to all the good people and that will stand on its own, regardless of the mud thrown. I’m not suggesting we should disassociate ourselves from Peter. What was done to him was patently unfair. We’ll support him whatever action he decides to take regarding the obvious libels that Bruce Fisher has extrapolated from the e-mails. But that will be as friends, and not, hopefully, being distracted from the mission statement. I’m sure Peter would want it that way.
But then, to be fair I need to remind people here not to react in kind. I was surprised, a little bit, to see how the Michael Wiesener issue was brought up here. I’ve already stated on HP that he, Steve Moore, and Greg Hampikian would be the author of their own misfortunes, since it was they who put their names in the public domain. Therefore they could expect criticism about them to be public as well. Posting Wiesener’s employer’s contact information was borderline, but the picture of Grace Cruz, the school principal? Hinting at identity of the high school student who wrote a dissenting e-mail from the school? Beyond the pale.
It’s always better to take the high road, even when fighting back.

Posted by Ergon on 06/05/11 at 12:08 AM | #

Hi Ergon,

It’s morally wrong that a high school student was obliged to support two convicted sex killers as part of a school course. It is wholly appropriate to contact the principal, Grace Cruz, to complain about this.

Posted by The Machine on 06/05/11 at 12:23 AM | #

Hi Ergon. True the whack at me followed the Wiesner post but it was so voluminous and so fast that we doubt they did not have it ready to go. I dont think theres any real sense here that we too are escalating or need to.

And Wiesner’s seemed to us a truly unique situation. Other Knox PR campaign “experts” are largely put there on their own claimed credentials. They try to sprinkle angel dust on themselves, by associating with for example the FBI and the Innocence Project, but they dont usually work illegitimately to develop a whole local bandwagon to provide a veneer of legitimacy to drag along too.

The way the Wiesner story was very widely reported, it was absolutely not just Wiesner on his own - and if it had been, he would probably not even had made the news.

In his case, it was reported as him having whipped up an entire class to start rooting for Knox, under the seemingly kindly blessing of the school’s principal. There is no way she could not have known about it, so she had either not investigated or turned a blind eye.

The principal and the school actually were an important part of the story and, from what we gather, directly because she was prompted by the post to investigate, Wiesner was reigned back in. All of his reports are now gone.

And as you may know we got an email suggesting that at least one student felt he had to go along with the Wiesner point of view because the strength of a grade was involved. In fact, the entire post could have been about the school.

Its role was very much tossed around and looked at critically on PMF.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/05/11 at 01:06 AM | #

Hello Ergon

As Machine says, it is wholly inappropriate for a teacher to force his/her own opinions on students, supported with evidence of not.  At best, both sides of the argument, in the context of the full range of evidence should be presented to enable students to make up their own minds.  I viewed the video, and as a teacher myself, found it wholly unacceptable. Quite right that the principal’s contact details were made available.  Sure many parents would like to be aware that their children are being indoctrinated in this way and being encouraged to support a convicted killer.

Posted by Lola on 06/05/11 at 07:32 PM | #

I listened to Greg Hampikian as per the link above as provided by The Machine.

Two interesting points emerged.

(1) He says that what the experts should do, if they have not done it already, is break open the handle from the blade and test for blood.
(2) The DNA on the bra clasp is very probably due to DNA transference given that (as film showed) it was picked up by one person, handed to another and then placed back on the floor.

As to (1) I understand that before they can break open the knife handle they require the sanction of the court and we have not heard that this has been given. If it has not been done then there may be a reason for this. I guess we just have to wait and see what is in the Report.

As to (2) I expect DNA transference will be be dealt with in the Report and not having any expertise whatsoever on the subject I am looking forward to this with interest. It is not a topic that has been much discussed although Dr Stefanoni dealt with it in evidence.

Dr Hampilian (to laughter) made it all sound so very easy. But is it?

As I said, I am no expert, but my instinctive reaction is to go with Dr Stefanoni. Although I think she said so much more I recall her observation that human DNA (as in blood, sweat, saliva and skin cells etc ) that has been lying around for 6 weeks is dry and does not transfer by simple touch unless there is some pressure (and I expect, lubrication) used. I didn’t see that in the clip and while I would have wished the forensic bods had more of a mind for the camera (and the possibility that the clip would end up on the US networks) I am sure that they knew what they were doing

Posted by James Raper on 06/05/11 at 08:32 PM | #

Hi James,

The defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination at the trial. If any evidence of contamination existed, it would have been presented in the courtroom in Perugia. Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it doesn’t exist.

Mignini explained in his interview with CNN that according to Italian law, evidence of contamination must be given:

“Also because, I would like this to be noted, from the perspective of Italian law, evidence of contamination must be given by the person who invokes it. This means: I found the genetic profile, you as defense attorney say ‘there could be contamination’, you must prove it. That is, the burden of proof is reversed: it is you, the one who invokes the contamination, the one who has to give evidence of it. And this evidence was never given and cannot, I think, it cannot be given. That is, the one who claims a fact must prove it, onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. [Translator’s note: This sentence was spoken in Latin and translates as “the burden of proof is on those who assert something, not on those who deny it”.]

Greg Hampikian has not provided any proof of contamination.

Posted by The Machine on 06/05/11 at 09:18 PM | #

I really like the CAD rendering of the apartment, Will. It beats the floor plan on Wikipedia. But can a larger one be done with:
-name tags on each room.
-locations of blood spots, footprints and significant DNA samples.
I was able to get a visual sense of the crime scene myself, and this was what convinced ME, but I think most people would like some assistance on this.
A picture being worth 10,000 pages of evidence 😊

Posted by Ergon on 06/08/11 at 05:32 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Beyond Massei: On The Seemingly Insuperable Mixed Blood Evidence By All The Expert Witnesses

Or to previous entry In Europe Human Rights Especially Privacy Trumping Web Defamers And Damaging Journalism