Why was Amanda bleeding again, and didn't she testify that her blood was not there when she was there the day before?
"
In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour" (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink.
More specifically:
The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox."
pg 192
http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf
Sigh...I hate that people misinterpret this so badly...
Let me put this in layman's terms.
I go to your bathroom sink and take a swipe. Said swipe will have your genetic profile on it if you used it to wash your hands, gargle, brushed your teeth etc.
Next, I cut myself and wash the blood off in the sink, then take a swipe. The swipe will show a mix of our genetic profiles and the presence of blood. It will not tell us
which genetic profile came from blood and which didn't.
Thus, your quote proves nothing other than that
somebody washed MK's blood off in a sink that AK regularly uses, and their genetic material became mixed. This is why forensic techs absolutely hate it when a suspect lives at the scene of the crime - otherwise telling dna & print evidence often becomes useless, unless you wish to insinuate that it means more than it really does to a non-scientifically educated jury (as often happens, much to the dismay of the various forensic certification boards).
Just because Mignini thinks that 'interpretation is more important than details' (don't get me started on how much this attitude disgusts me), doesn't make it right that it has been presented by him and then by Massai as a
scientifically proven fact when it is in fact pure speculation. I swear, the hoodwinks pulled by the prosecution's expert witnesses in this case would get most scientists in less forgiving fields (pretty much any that don't involve putting people in prison, ironically enough) a nice black listing from all reputable publications and studies (not that it's anything unusual nowadays, this has become a plague that has only one solution - automatic allowance of independent expert review of all forensics in cases with long sentences).