Machiavelli,
What you wrote is beyond ridiculous, and it is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. All egrams with peak heights should have been gladly offered in 2008. Instead a subset of all of the egrams were given to the defense in 2008, and many did not have peak heights (or Pascali would not have had to ask for them in 2008, as Bongiorno discussed). I would surmise that some peak height information became available by 2009, because Professor Tagliabracci was able to discuss them in his testimony about the autosomal profile from the bra clasp. The knife profile also had peak heights by 2009.
Some egrams with peak heights were grudgingly released in 2011, only three years too late. The egrams I saw at this time were much higher in quality than the ones I had seen previously. Stefanoni's tables (which can be found in the Conti-Vecchiotti report and in Dr. Vecchiotti's 2013 article) do not include any number of peaks with peak heights greater than 50 RFU. This sleight-of-hand was particularly egregious with respect to the Y-chromosomal DNA egram of the clasp because several alleles have non-stutter peaks that are greater than this in height. In addition, there are a number of alleles in the Y-chromosomal egram from the clasp which are obviously real, yet do not have a peak height above 50 RFU. When one considers the fact that Stefanoni included peaks as small as 15 RFU in the knife egram, one might ask why other egrams should be treated with a different threshold.
And after almost seven years, there are still no electronic data files. There are missing egrams that could be recreated from the raw data, and the negative controls would be far more useful in this form. Given this sorry shadow of what proper discovery would look like, the defense did not have a chance to challenge Stefanoni's misrepresentations properly during the trial of first instance in 2009.
If Stefanoni wants to claim that she deposited the negative controls in 2008, one must ask, "Then where are they now?" If Stefanoni still wants to claim that she never had contamination in seven years, then one must ask, what about the quantification data that show otherwise?
Let's look at the abundance of wild statements in your post. We may start just with questions to clarify.
On what legal basis you assert "should be offered”?
What does “gladly” mean?
What do you mean by the verb "offered"? (what legal procedure does the "offering" consist of? what subject and what venue, and what procedure?)
"Offered" by whom, which subject under what procedure, what timing?
While you think about what you meant exactly, let me tell you in advance: what you are fabricating is pure legal nonsense.
The alleged "duties" that you pin on Stefanoni simply have no place in the procedure code, or there is no way to pin them on Stefanoni.
Stefanoni does not "want" to "claim" anything. You are the person making a claim here according to the trial papers, and you should back your claims if you have something to show, not Stefanoni.
But, let's go back for a moment to what you said a page ago.
Besides your new wild claims about these alleged duties about all egrams, it seems to me that your post (pasted above) is unrelated with your previous false claim I was answering to, I men the one that you made in your post in the previous page: what you actually claimed on the previous page, is that first Nencini should have considered Stefanoni a liar (and not Vecchiotti), and you made reference to Stefanoni as liar on the ground that she (according to you) has lied as she
did not list all the peaks in the profile template that she attached inside her report (that is, the one about the bra clasp).
I have obviously caught you lying on this point.
As for such false claim of yours about the peaks in the template, the truth is Stefanoni presented all peaks from the egram which the template refers to. She did so in 2008, that is immediately when requested, as for the law.
This is the truth. And what you said about the point, is false.
As for the rest, the other topics that you threw in in your response, the truth is Patrizia Stefanoni followed the law, she hid nothing and everything she did with regards to publishing or issuing egrams wherever was in accord to her duties, code, Law, judge orders and parties requests.
But in any event, the main point is not what Stefanoni did precisely, but rather that your legal basis on which you have the pretension to judge her, is simply a complete fabrication by yourself. Your alleged legal standards and procedures, are just your invention, they don't exist.
Even in the event you decide to draw some far fetched implication from one confused oral request made by Dalla Vedova to Massei, that was done late at the end of the trial, not written in defence instances and not submitted nor at SC nor at the appeal courts, and if you try to place some abnormal importance on it, still, the mai fact remains: your assertion about what Stefanoni “should” have done legally is baseless. Your legal procedures and duties you project on Stefanoni are made up. Nothing like "should have gladly offered..." has any resemblance of truth in reality. You have no basis in the code to state that Stefanoni did not fulfill duties and your assertion like “all egrams with peak heights should have been gladly offered in 2008” is legally baseless, and besidethat it is also legally nonsense as my questions at the top can show.
Few last points: your reporting about “some” e-grams (according to you) “grudgingly” (?) released in 2011 is also false.
No new e-grams were released in 2011. No new information was released to Conti and Vecchiotti at all. That information was what was already available and already deposited (no judicial source nor witness ever questioned the papers saying these very e-grams with peak heights were already deposited in the file since 2008).
