As I noted in my previous post, The Falls Church News Press seems to be acting as an agent for Gardner, a former columnist of the paper and professed good friend of the publisher, as that paper worked to get information about Gardner's victims made public. Since that information was already available to the defense, making it public only served to publicly shame the victims and potential witnesses.
As the news of the trial was released today, you can also see the difference in treatment the Falls Church News-Press has for the case in stark contrast to other local media. Just take a look at the headline other media has given to the first witness testimony (as mentioned above). NBC 4 headlined "Child Takes Stand in Sex Case Against Michael Gardner". But the News-Press, "First Complainant Identifies Gardner as Attacker". Got that, "complainant" not "child". Softens the blow a bit.
One bigger contrast is how the Falls Church News-Press has treated the information regarding the second DNA sample. In their article "DNA Report in Gardner Case: Father 'Can't Be Eliminated' as Major Source", they clearly leave the reader with the impression that perhaps the father of one of the girls is at guilt for the crimes of Gardner. They selectively quote a forensics report.
By contrast look at how WUSA9 handled that information in "Michael Gardner Child Molestation Trial Begins With Jury Selection":
The DNA report also found sperm on one of the girl's pajama pants. The sperm is not Gardner's but the girl's father's. No semen was found, and there is no allegation of abuse by the father. A previous judge ruled the defense cannot allege any sexual abuse by that father.Quite a bit more explanation of what is going on by WUSA 9 than by the much more local Falls Church News-Press.
But, how the sperm got there may be an important question during the trial. The father of that girl says a DNA expert has and will explain for the jury that if clothes soiled with semen are washed with other clothes, while the semen may wash away, dozens if not hundreds of microscopic sperm are distributed in the wash and cling to all the clothes. "It's in the wash, that's all it is," he said. A Canadian study on the matter is referenced in the NCJRS.