Por outro lado, os actos que constam do auto de reconstituição são compatíveis com os vestígios hemáticos recolhidos na sala (repare-se que a reconstituição tem lugar na sala), como resulta do auto de busca e apreensão efectuado em 22.9.2004 (cfr. fls. 173 e 233 ss), onde consta que foram recolhidos vestígios no chão, junto à porta de entrada, exterior e interiormente, junto ao interruptor eléctrico interior à direita da porta de entrada, junto à entrada do lado esquerdo do sofá, num par de ténis de MM Silva que se encontrava entre os sofás, numa esfregona (haste) e respectivo balde. Estes vestígios, segundo perícias efectuadas, são de sangue humano e de sangue humano e animal (cfr. fls. 235), e embora fossem insuficientes para averiguar a quem pertencem através do ADN (fls. 1780 ss), são reveladores de que naquela sala aconteceu algo terrível, algo que deu origem a que houvesse sangue humano no chão e nas paredes, que foram limpos com uma esfregona e balde, sendo que o sangue que estava na esfregona se encontrava na haste, revelador que quem utilizou a esfregona tinha por sua vez as mãos sujas de sangue. Assim, os vestígios recolhidos na sala vêm reforçar a fiabilidade da reconstituição.
(Joana Morais / Astro translation)
On the other hand, the actions that are part of the reconstitution act are compatible with the blood traces that were collected in the living room (it should be noted that the reconstitution takes place in the living room), as a result of the search and apprehension act that was carried out on the 22th of September 2004 (cfr. pages 173 and 233 and following), which mentions that traces were collected on the floor, near the entrance door, inside and outside, near the interior electrical switch on the right hand side of the entrance door, near the entrance on the left hand side of the sofa, on a pair of trainers belonging to MM [Leandro] * Silva that were located between the sofas, on a mop (handle) and its bucket.
These traces, according to forensics exams, are of human blood and of human and animal blood (cfr. page 235), and although insufficient to establish whom they belong to through the DNA (pages 1780 and following), they reveal that something terrible happened in that living room, something that originated the existence of human blood on the floor and on the walls, which was cleaned with a mop and a bucket; the blood that was on the mop was located on the handle, revealing that the person who used the mop had in turn his or her hands dirty with blood. Therefore, the traces that were collected in the living room reinforce the reliability of the reconstitution.
* MM was Leandro's half-brother /friend who lived with them. Leandro is II in the ruling.
---
Then there's this passage in the SC ruling, refuting the defence's legal arguments, seemingly. I can only get the gist of it and it might have made more sense if the forensic report were available.
My (possibly flawed) understanding of that is that the the lawyers were arguing that there was a contradiction concernng the results of the black torch and the blood found. I'm not sure what contradiction this was, but clearly a black torch will make substances other than blood fluoresce - and there does indeed appear to have been traces of human and a mixture of human and animal blood somewhere in those areas. The argument may have been that just because an area becomes fluorescent, and a trace of blood is found somewhere within the area, it doesn't mean that the entire area was blood (which would seem to make sense), nor was it necessarily hers as the DNA profiles couldn't be established.
The SC logic appears to be that as the area had been cleaned (there is no evidence that this was the case, aside from of the "we, experts" variety who eventually turned up 10 days after the event in a home in which numerous people continued to live as it hadn't been sealed off), the DNA couldn't be identified. There was other evidence that it was hers (such as...?) and anyway the lab hadn't proven that it couldn't have been hers.
Hmmm.
E.VII. Inexistiu igualmente qualquer contradição insanável na motivação decorrente de não se terem entendido como sendo da malograda CC os vestígios recolhidos através da técnica da projectina e o entendimento de serem seus os vestígios de sangue humano colhidos na casa onde decorreram os factos, ou entre esta conclusão e a de que, por acção de limpezas efectuadas pela arguida BB, não ter sido possível apurar o ADN de tal sangue.
Isto porque foi através de muitos outros elementos de prova que se concluiu por ser sangue da menor aquele que foi colhido na casa, em nada se relacionando esses vestígios hemáticos com os colhidos pela técnica da projectina (que faz surgir outros fluidos corporais).
Sendo ainda que apenas poderia existir a alegada contradição caso existissem, por sua vez, elementos laboratoriais que afastassem a possibilidade de o sangue pertencer à vítima, o que não sucedeu.
Não existem, assim, quaisquer factos contraditórios dados como provados quanto a esta matéria.