I suspect Xinonix just got his terms mixed up, or he assumed greater knowledge of his audience than was warranted.
Like the
Polizia Scientifica, the
Polizia Postale is a division of the Italian
Polizia di Stato. Raffaele had called the
Carabinieri which is a different organization entirely. However because the Postals showed up first, the
Polizia di Stato had jurisdiction over the case, leading to the use of the
Polizia Scientifica as to opposed the
Carabinieri's forensic technicians and scientists.
If I recall correctly, the
Carabinieri handed over the electronic data files of the work they did on 36I from the knife, just as the independent court experts Conti and Vecchiotti did. That means of the three Italian organizations which did DNA work on this case only the
Polizia Scientifica of the
Polizia di Stato refused to cough up the data for the DNA work they did. Stefanoni claimed they
never had to turn over those files, which those other scientists did as a matter of course.
An interesting aside relevant to the current discussion: the amount of DNA on the bra clasp was not actually measured, it was determined by Real Time DNA which notes when the (amplified) DNA in a sample crosses a certain threshold and then computes backwards from that to determine how much DNA was in the initial sample, as the (geometric) formula is known. However if that threshold is changed incorrectly, that would affect the results of the computation, quite possibly by orders of magnitude. That threshold was changed by Stefanoni and I've not heard a good explanation as to why, and I recall reading in a post by Dan-O that the (reported) efficiency of that reaction was unusually high, meaning that it supposedly took a shorter time to reach that threshold--which would indicate a larger initial sample.
The (entire) sample for the bra clasp was reported as being on the order of 1-1.4 nanograms, with Raffaele's contribution estimated as being 1/7th (Stefanoni) to 1/10th (Tagliabracci) of that. That would make Raffaele's DNA in the sample about 100-200 picograms,
if the value determined through Real Time DNA was correctly calculated. On the other hand if the unusually high efficiency rate indicates that the threshold was incorrectly changed that would mean the initial sample was in fact much (as in many times) smaller than the values she reported.
We know she tried to give the impression the knife sample DNA was much larger than it actually was, lying in court about it being computed through Real Time DNA and being 'hundreds of picograms' when Real Time DNA was not done, she never got a value from the Qubit outside "too low" and the electropherogram indicated results consistent with about a 10 pg sample. Would it be a terrible surprise if she'd done something similar with the bra clasp to suggest a much larger sample than her actual data indicated?
