Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NancyS]

Protocols in reality must be made compatible with many practical limitations (time, supplies, etc.). Real life is often imperfect, you can't expect ideal conditions as if they were a practical standard or reasonable expectation. You need to make the best of what you have, you can't always ask for the best.
Moreover, Stefanoni is not even the person in charge of the crime scene.
What matters instead is something else. The question to answer about the DNA findings (which is not the most important evidence in the trial anyway) is how did Sollecito's DNA come to the bra clasp. If there is any reasonably explanation why the specific finding of Sollecito's profile on the metal hook should be a probable event, without he taking part to the murder.
Attempts to attack Stefanoni are just mean attempts to divert the discourse, and to try to go around the question. No ranting of protocols and standards nor pretexts or specious unjustified insults against forensic scientists will change the finding and the point to answer: Sollecito's DNA is on the bra clasp, no alleged protocol breach would offer a probable alternative explanation, even if they dipped the bra clasp in a bucket of mud before collecting it that would not be helpful to Sollecito's defense: its DNA would still demand to be explained.

Well seeing as Sollecito had legitimate contact with Meredith Kercher just hours before she was murdered by Guede - and had visited the house on a number of occasions, there are a myriad of ways for his DNA to be transferred.

And all I have to say to Stefanoni is "Soap and Water!"

 

[Samson]

Not "the" post, I ignored many posts, and I will ignore many more. It is just impossible to follow all topics.

I wish you would read it and respond, because it is directly related to your discussion with Chris about the bra hook . I see it as a roadblock the prosecution came through like Casper the friendly ghost, and I am genuinely perplexed how the issue can be ignored by the Italian courts.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

All derogatory comments against Stefanoni by pro-Knox supporters are unjustified and they appear based on circular logic. It seems also prejudice ignorance about the legal procedures play a part, since some people seem to think that not taking care of storage shows ‘incompetence’ (item storage is actually unusual and never requested when art. 360 is applied, actually, as most frequent procedure for ‘non-repeatable test’, items tested under art. 360 of procedure code are destroyed immediately after the test right away).

What you say about Ebola and Stefanoni is somehow funny because, while Patrizia Stefanoni has personally no role in contrasting Ebola, she happens to be trained in the institute that is actually leading the research on the Ebola vaccine.

Stefanoni had her degree in molecular biology at the University Federico II of Naples and worked as a researcher having her PhD at the Ceinge labs, that is the Genetics laboratories inside the University Federico of Naples, her professors and lab directors were Riccardo Cortese, Franco Salvatore and the team includes Alfredo Nicosia. The persons in charge of producing the Ebola vaccine in fact are Stefanoni’s professors, Cortese, Salvatore, Nicosia and others from the Ceinge lab. Some years ago they created a company with Swiss-Italian and Duch capitals that leads genetic research in vaccines, has its laboratories in Italy and last year was bought by Glaxo.

The University Federico II of Naples is not one of the top universities, especially if considered overall. But contains some advanced faculties such as Genetics, and scientists at the institute from which Stefanoni is from are clearly not totally incompetent, otherwise they wouldn’t be the world top researchers on the Ebola vaccine.

Of course I would trust Stefanoni if she was in charge of Ebola genetic researches. Indeed I would have complete trust. She has a degree cum laude and post-degree trainings in Naples, her professors who selected her and trained her are Cortese, Salvatore and Nicosia, there is no reason why I should consider her an incompetent. Of course I would prefer Stefanoni rather than those who appear presumptuous and petulant ideological activits ranting about standards and made up legal principles like amateurish beaurocrats, or claim to be 'experts' in cases where they are not even witnesses.

For news about the Ebola vaccines and a trip in the Naples lab:
On al Jazeera inside the lab
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-italy-2014910201952813411.html

Some mention on the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29238992

-

Who stored the bra-clasp so it became contaminated? Since she's responsible for the lab work, this act alone, in my opinion, makes the rest of her work questionable at best, and lies at the worst,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Not "the" post, I ignored many posts, and I will ignore many more. It is just impossible to follow all topics.

I will actually kind of agree with that argument. . . .I sometimes have had discussions where I just cannot respond to everything.

-

I kind of agree also. It's impossible (in a practical sense) to respond to everything.

Although I don't agree with most of his/ her post, he does respond to a lot of them. H/ She at least does argue a lot of the evidence which is better than most people who post derogatory comments and opinions and run. Of course, some who believe in innocence are also guilty, myself included, of posting same, but most stay and defend them.

I have to give Mach kudos for that,

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

... What matters instead is something else. The question to answer about the DNA findings (which is not the most important evidence in the trial anyway) is how did Sollecito's DNA come to the bra clasp. If there is any reasonably explanation why the specific finding of Sollecito's profile on the metal hook should be a probable event, without he taking part to the murder.

With regard to the DNA profile attributed to the bra clasp, if it is to be used as evidence in the case it must be proven how it got there. What Mach and company are doing is reverseing the burden of proof.

The current poster using the Machiavelli account apparently was not advised of the previous explanations presented that would explain that profile.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

With regard to the DNA profile attributed to the bra clasp, if it is to be used as evidence in the case it must be proven how it got there. What Mach and company are doing is reverseing the burden of proof.

The current poster using the Machiavelli account apparently was not advised of the previous explanations presented that would explain that profile.

-

I agree. If you're charging one of the profiles with murder, then you have to do the same with the others. It doesn't make sense otherwise at best, or is a derogatory claim by the prosecution at worst.

Even though I agree with Mach on his explanation for not answering all post, It would be interesting to read Mach's answer to Samson's post, as it goes to the very heart of the Prosecution's case and without it there isn't enough of a case to even climb to the summit of Mount Reasonable Doubt, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

With regard to the DNA profile attributed to the bra clasp, if it is to be used as evidence in the case it must be proven how it got there. What Mach and company are doing is reverseing the burden of proof.

The current poster using the Machiavelli account apparently was not advised of the previous explanations presented that would explain that profile.

The poster using the Machiavelli account (only one person) never found any explanation that would be reasonable, and make the finding of Sollecito's DNA on innocent grounds be considered probable.

 

[Machiavelli]

-


-

I agree. If you're charging one of the profiles with murder, then you have to do the same with the others. It doesn't make sense otherwise at best, or is a derogatory claim by the prosecution at worst.

Even though I agree with Mach on his explanation for not answering all post, It would be interesting to read Mach's answer to Samson's post, as it goes to the very heart of the Prosecution's case and without it there isn't enough of a case to even climb to the summit of Mount Reasonable Doubt, in my opinion,

d

-

The topic addressed by Samson is what I address as the "gastric content" defense argument.

I have already expressed my opinion in the past about this topic. I have my opinion, and I am not going through my points again here in this post. If there are people here who wish to restrict the discussion to this point alone, I might focus on this and explain why I believe the defensive arguments are not effective.

Just point out some general things about the setting of this argument anyway.
The most important point, is that this is a 'defensive argument'. By this label I mean it is not the dismantling of some existing evidence, it's not undermining or attacking points of evidence, it's not about putting in discussion the evidence in other words: not a 'negative' argument meant to deny some evidence of guilt, but instead a 'positive' argument, that is meant to create some new 'evidence of innocence'.

The logical nature of these kind of arguments is fundamentally different, when it gets to a trial approach. The 'defensive argument' is by definition an alibi. In practice the burden of proof on a defensive argument itself rests entirely on the defence.
When a defensive strategic is focused not on challenging the evidence directly but on something else, that is upon an alibi, upon an external defensive argument, this means that in order to be effective, such external argument needs to fulfill a very high probative standard (if the evidence against is strong).

The gastric emptying argument in my opinion is an argument undermined by severe flaws that make it become ineffective; it is absolutely not solid as the pro-Knox supporters believe, and especially appeared not corroborated within the trial.

 

[sept79]

Protocols in reality must be made compatible with many practical limitations (time, supplies, etc.). Real life is often imperfect, you can't expect ideal conditions as if they were a practical standard or reasonable expectation. You need to make the best of what you have, you can't always ask for the best.
.
.
.

The above is true if one is not concerned about wrongful convictions . . .

 

[Samson]

The topic addressed by Samson is what I address as the "gastric content" defense argument.

I have already expressed my opinion in the past about this topic. I have my opinion, and I am not going through my points again here in this post. If there are people here who wish to restrict the discussion to this point alone, I might focus on this and explain why I believe the defensive arguments are not effective.

Just point out some general things about the setting of this argument anyway.
The most important point, is that this is a 'defensive argument'. By this label I mean it is not the dismantling of some existing evidence, it's not undermining or attacking points of evidence, it's not about putting in discussion the evidence in other words: not a 'negative' argument meant to deny some evidence of guilt, but instead a 'positive' argument, that is meant to create some new 'evidence of innocence'.

The logical nature of these kind of arguments is fundamentally different, when it gets to a trial approach. The 'defensive argument' is by definition an alibi. In practice the burden of proof on a defensive argument itself rests entirely on the defence.
When a defensive strategic is focused not on challenging the evidence directly but on something else, that is upon an alibi, upon an external defensive argument, this means that in order to be effective, such external argument needs to fulfill a very high probative standard (if the evidence against is strong).

The gastric emptying argument in my opinion is an argument undermined by severe flaws that make it become ineffective; it is absolutely not solid as the pro-Knox supporters believe, and especially appeared not corroborated within the trial.

Thank you, but my argument depends entirely on science, and is a SUFFICIENT roadblock. Whether the prosecution or defence discussed it at any trial has no bearing on my post. I am discussing an autopsy, and statements by prosecution witnesses that have become official with Nencini.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you, but my argument depends entirely on science, and is a SUFFICIENT roadblock. Whether the prosecution or defence discussed it at any trial has no bearing on my post. I am discussing an autopsy, and statements by prosecution witnesses that have become official with Nencini.

Leaving aside the medical experts discussion within the trial for a moment, actually the argument cannot depend *only* on "science", since it's an alibi. It has to do with the rest of the information. Like for example, how much time-sensitive the time of death in relation to Sollecito and Knox's defence alibi actually is.

In my opinion, the first thing to note is that the TOD in this case is not enough time-sensitive to make this kind of argument work.

There is basically no solid alibi for two people beyond 20:40, there are inconsistencies on Knox's alibi even on the previous time, there is no continuous alibi for anyone over the evening, and then there is not even a slight trace of alibi for anyone at all after 21:18 or 21:28; instead there is evidence that they provided false alibies (no computer activity as described, phone calls, lies on timings), which means evidence against them.

On the other hand, there is evidence Meredith was not home before 21:00. This means, TOD cannot be anticipated more than saying it must be some time after 21:00.

This leaves little possibility to build an argument based on the anticipation of the TOD on the basis of science: there is no room for shifting the TOD earlier than 21:00 or closer to 21:00, and 21:00 is already around the time when the suspects have no working alibies any more (because they have no real alibi after 8:40), anyway 21:00 is very close to 21:30 where they are going to have absolute zero trace of alibi at all.

This is only the first reason (whould be enough). Btw a difference between 21:00 and 21:30 changes little if you decide to assume as time of meal a time that was like three hours before: three hours would be already an abnormal delay that would force you to abandon the statistical premise comletely and chang the logical assumptions. The gastric emptying argument is undermined also by other factors.

 

[Samson]

Leaving aside the medical experts discussion within the trial for a moment, actually the argument cannot depend *only* on "science", since it's an alibi. It has to do with the rest of the information. Like for example, how much time-sensitive the time of death in relation to Sollecito and Knox's defence alibi actually is.

In my opinion, the first thing to note is that the TOD in this case is not enough time-sensitive to make this kind of argument work.

There is basically no solid alibi for two people beyond 20:40, there are inconsistencies on Knox's alibi even on the previous time, there is no continuous alibi for anyone over the evening, and then there is not even a slight trace of alibi for anyone at all after 21:18 or 21:28; instead there is evidence that they provided false alibies (no computer activity as described, phone calls, lies on timings), which means evidence against them.

On the other hand, there is evidence Meredith was not home before 21:00. This means, TOD cannot be anticipated more than saying it must be some time after 21:00.

This leaves little possibility to build an argument based on the anticipation of the TOD on the basis of science: there is no room for shifting the TOD earlier than 21:00 or closer to 21:00, and 21:00 is already around the time when the suspects have no working alibies any more (because they have no real alibi after 8:40), anyway 21:00 is very close to 21:30 where they are going to have absolute zero trace of alibi at all.

This is only the first reason (whould be enough). Btw a difference between 21:00 and 21:30 changes little if you decide to assume as time of meal a time that was like three hours before: three hours would be already an abnormal delay that would force you to abandon the statistical premise comletely and chang the logical assumptions. The gastric emptying argument is undermined also by other factors.

The argument is best undermined by challenging Lalli's procedure, but my argument depends on this being correct. The courts accept it because it is unchallengeable for a range of physical reasons.
We must then move the time of death as close to time of meal as possible to accomodate any statistical extreme.
It is fortunate we have a logical and forensic means, the killer was in the house when she arrived home, and stress or death stopped digestion in its tracks. It is not possible to blend Amanda and Raffaele into this strategy jointly for a good number of reasons, including CCTV footage, computer evidence of Amelie and Naruto, arranging a meeting with Guede, so the alibi is osmotically sound.
So 7 30pm to 9pm is difficult but possible. 6 30 to 9pm is impossible. 7 30 to 9 45 is impossible, but 8 to 9 30 is possible, but official court documents preclude this as an option.
However there is no specific testimony that Meredith ate her pizza at 6 30. Therefore it must be concluded it remained on a plate till the desert arrived at 7 30 at which time she consumed both.
This is the best I can do, but it fits the available evidence. Absolutely no alternative is possible.
We can discuss flying a plane without a tail, saying 90% of it is perfect, but osmotically it still will not fly, and the later time of death is the plane tail that doesn't exist.

I read all your ideas on digestion ladst year, so I have studied every internet paper and journal I could find to contradict the facts, but there is none. You must be specific about The gastric emptying argument being undermined by other factors.

Meanwhile I am researching ways to get my proof in front of the American State department and the Italian government.
There is something to laugh about.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The topic addressed by Samson is what I address as the "gastric content" defense argument.

I have already expressed my opinion in the past about this topic. I have my opinion, and I am not going through my points again here in this post. If there are people here who wish to restrict the discussion to this point alone, I might focus on this and explain why I believe the defensive arguments are not effective.

Just point out some general things about the setting of this argument anyway.
The most important point, is that this is a 'defensive argument'. By this label I mean it is not the dismantling of some existing evidence, it's not undermining or attacking points of evidence, it's not about putting in discussion the evidence in other words: not a 'negative' argument meant to deny some evidence of guilt, but instead a 'positive' argument, that is meant to create some new 'evidence of innocence'.

The logical nature of these kind of arguments is fundamentally different, when it gets to a trial approach. The 'defensive argument' is by definition an alibi. In practice the burden of proof on a defensive argument itself rests entirely on the defence. When a defensive strategic is focused not on challenging the evidence directly but on something else, that is upon an alibi, upon an external defensive argument, this means that in order to be effective, such external argument needs to fulfill a very high probative standard (if the evidence against is strong). The gastric emptying argument in my opinion is an argument undermined by severe flaws that make it become ineffective; it is absolutely not solid as the pro-Knox supporters believe, and especially appeared not corroborated within the trial.

-

I remember your arguements about the duodenum, but basicly you were trying to use an improbability to disprove something more probable, which doesn't fly with me. The prosecution hasn't proven, in my opinion, that the TOD was after 9:30.

I agree with the highlighted part to a point, but once the arguement is raised by the defense, the prosecution can't ignore it. Just saying the defense has to prove the point does nothing to prove that contamination wasn't possible,* especially considering the way the bra-clasp was stored which resulted in it being contaminated, in my opinion,

d

-
ETA: *The duodenum, Meredith's last call to her Mom, Rudy's skype call, Raffaele and Amanda's alibi, the other profiles on the clasp, Raffaele's fingerprints on the door knob, and the video showing how the clasp was collected all together prove contamination is way more probable than not, and why I believe their guilt is improbable, in my opinion.

-

 

[Desert Fox]

It is interesting that the Italian courts are suppose to write a motivation report yet their are written in such a format to effective be meaningless. It is a case of why bother.

 

[moije2]

All derogatory comments against Stefanoni by pro-Knox supporters are unjustified and they appear based on circular logic. It seems also prejudice ignorance about the legal procedures play a part, since some people seem to think that not taking care of storage shows ‘incompetence’ (item storage is actually unusual and never requested when art. 360 is applied, actually, as most frequent procedure for ‘non-repeatable test’, items tested under art. 360 of procedure code are destroyed immediately after the test right away).

What you say about Ebola and Stefanoni is somehow funny because, while Patrizia Stefanoni has personally no role in contrasting Ebola, she happens to be trained in the institute that is actually leading the research on the Ebola vaccine.

Stefanoni had her degree in molecular biology at the University Federico II of Naples and worked as a researcher having her PhD at the Ceinge labs, that is the Genetics laboratories inside the University Federico of Naples, her professors and lab directors were Riccardo Cortese, Franco Salvatore and the team includes Alfredo Nicosia. The persons in charge of producing the Ebola vaccine in fact are Stefanoni’s professors, Cortese, Salvatore, Nicosia and others from the Ceinge lab. Some years ago they created a company with Swiss-Italian and Duch capitals that leads genetic research in vaccines, has its laboratories in Italy and last year was bought by Glaxo.

The University Federico II of Naples is not one of the top universities, especially if considered overall. But contains some advanced faculties such as Genetics, and scientists at the institute from which Stefanoni is from are clearly not totally incompetent, otherwise they wouldn’t be the world top researchers on the Ebola vaccine.

Of course I would trust Stefanoni if she was in charge of Ebola genetic researches. Indeed I would have complete trust. She has a degree cum laude and post-degree trainings in Naples, her professors who selected her and trained her are Cortese, Salvatore and Nicosia, there is no reason why I should consider her an incompetent. Of course I would prefer Stefanoni rather than those who appear presumptuous and petulant ideological activits ranting about standards and made up legal principles like amateurish beaurocrats, or claim to be 'experts' in cases where they are not even witnesses.

For news about the Ebola vaccines and a trip in the Naples lab:
On al Jazeera inside the lab
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-italy-2014910201952813411.html

Some mention on the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29238992

I am not sure I understand your comment regarding storage of the bra clasp. You state it is unusual to store evidence, yet at the same time she had such high training with the likes of "her professors and lab directors were Riccardo Cortese, Franco Salvatore and the team includes Alfredo Nicosia". Is it that she didn't know how to store specimens/evidence because it wasn't within her job experience? Surely the highly esteemed Cortese, Salvatore, Nicosia et al would have had opportunity to store working specimens at some point and pass that knowledge on to her? Or do they never maintain such work product also? Somehow I don't think you mean to say Stefanoni shouldn't know how to properly store things of that nature. You state that the legal structure doesn't usually dictate storage. But she was asked by someone to store the clasp - I assume because the end result was that it was stored. So why not do it right? With all of the highly technical analysis involved in this case, I would think that Stefanoni's competence could be reasonably questioned regarding the clasp storage. I don't get your reference to circular logic by her critics in this regard.

As you see I am curious about this bra clasp storage. Do you know if it was actually Stefanoni that did the act of physically storing the bra clasp, or was that delegated to an underling? If so, to whom?

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not sure I understand your comment regarding storage of the bra clasp. You state it is unusual to store evidence, yet at the same time she had such high training with the likes of "her professors and lab directors were Riccardo Cortese, Franco Salvatore and the team includes Alfredo Nicosia". Is it that she didn't know how to store specimens/evidence because it wasn't within her job experience? Surely the highly esteemed Cortese, Salvatore, Nicosia et al would have had opportunity to store working specimens at some point and pass that knowledge on to her? Or do they never maintain such work product also? Somehow I don't think you mean to say Stefanoni shouldn't know how to properly store things of that nature. You state that the legal structure doesn't usually dictate storage. But she was asked by someone to store the clasp - I assume because the end result was that it was stored. So why not do it right? With all of the highly technical analysis involved in this case, I would think that Stefanoni's competence could be reasonably questioned regarding the clasp storage. I don't get your reference to circular logic by her critics in this regard.

As you see I am curious about this bra clasp storage. Do you know if it was actually Stefanoni that did the act of physically storing the bra clasp, or was that delegated to an underling? If so, to whom?

Machiavelli is not really consistent. . . .A previous argument was that they did not have storage space for the Bra Clasp to be properly stored.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

I remember your arguements about the duodenum, but basicly you were trying to use an improbability to disprove something more probable, which doesn't fly with me. The prosecution hasn't proven, in my opinion, that the TOD was after 9:30.

I agree with the highlighted part to a point, but once the arguement is raised by the defense, the prosecution can't ignore it. Just saying the defense has to prove the point does nothing to prove that contamination wasn't possible,* especially considering the way the bra-clasp was stored which resulted in it being contaminated, in my opinion,

I'll leave the topic you address about the TOD and gastric content to another post. Here I focus on just your last statement.

I highlighted "my opinion" because it's not logically irrelevant. You address in this last statement a few entities which exist in your opinion and seem to have some features shaped by your opinon, let's see them.

The notion that there is a contamination of the bra clasp, in particular that there was a specific contamination - relevant to the finding - that is the notion that it is Sollecito's profile that can be related to contamination, is not a proven fact. It's your opinion, and I'm afraid it's baseless. In my opinion it is not just not a fact, also not a reasonable hypotheses. Maybe you have a different opinion. I don't know what your opinion would be based on, I can tell you I likely have a different one.

But above all the idea that there was a contamination which resulted from storage, is you opinion, not a proven fact.
The fact is there is no reason to assume - even in the theoretical event there was a contamination - that this would be caused by how the item was stored before the test.
I see no factual basis for such an assumption. It seems to me unreasonable and unscientific.
I think it is not reasonable to assume a causal link between storage conditions and contamination event. Nothing points to such consequential link. It's made up.

Also, it wouldn't be logically consequential, wouldn't have the implication that you think evan if true, but it is baseless, made up.

The bra clasp was on the floor for 46 days, while other people entered the room. It was touched and handeled with gloves which I can reasonably assume might have contamination with some environmental allele that might have been also present on the floor, since forensic work is not sterile. The item was also itself an object frequently touched maybe even by other males at other times so maybe even retained previous traces. Possible contaminating agents can be reasonably related to this environmental sources or previous traces, which are independent from Stefanoni, there is no reason to assume that they should be related to the storage conditions.
So I don't know why you decided that storage conditions must have caused a contamination.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli is not really consistent. . . .A previous argument was that they did not have storage space for the Bra Clasp to be properly stored.

Stefanoni's testimony answered to the point. But the relevant legal point is that Stefanoni's lab did not take further precautions to store the item, because simply they are not required to do so: it is an unrepeatable test under art. 360 of the procedure code. A frequent procedure (that is the one mostly followed by the Carabinieri) is that when the test is done under art 360 the item is destroyed immediately after the test.

 

[moije2]

Stefanoni's testimony answered to the point. But the relevant legal point is that Stefanoni's lab did not take further precautions to store the item, because simply they are not required to do so: it is an unrepeatable test under art. 360 of the procedure code. A frequent procedure (that is the one mostly followed by the Carabinieri) is that when the test is done under art 360 the item is destroyed immediately after the test.

So why did she store it? And if she chose to store it, why did she store it incorrectly?

 

[Machiavelli]

I am not sure I understand your comment regarding storage of the bra clasp. You state it is unusual to store evidence, yet at the same time she had such high training with the likes of "her professors and lab directors were Riccardo Cortese, Franco Salvatore and the team includes Alfredo Nicosia". Is it that she didn't know how to store specimens/evidence because it wasn't within her job experience? Surely the highly esteemed Cortese, Salvatore, Nicosia et al would have had opportunity to store working specimens at some point and pass that knowledge on to her? Or do they never maintain such work product also? Somehow I don't think you mean to say Stefanoni shouldn't know how to properly store things of that nature. You state that the legal structure doesn't usually dictate storage. But she was asked by someone to store the clasp - I assume because the end result was that it was stored. So why not do it right? With all of the highly technical analysis involved in this case, I would think that Stefanoni's competence could be reasonably questioned regarding the clasp storage. I don't get your reference to circular logic by her critics in this regard.

As you see I am curious about this bra clasp storage. Do you know if it was actually Stefanoni that did the act of physically storing the bra clasp, or was that delegated to an underling? If so, to whom?

Stefanoni's laboratory processes hundreds of items every week. None of the partyies involved in the trial asked them to store the item for further tests, as far as I know there is no such request. But there is actually another person who instead was requested to store an item and failed to do it properly, this person is Carla Vecchiotti. It is particularly relevant also because it a sample that was not tested, since she refused to process it. The DNA sample was stored improperly as the Carabinieri RIS pointed out, its solution amount partly reduced because not protected by a film and kept in a refrigerator that didn't have temperature logs, and not even a termometer.
And it was, by the way, an empty refrigerator. Because Vecchiotti's laboratory doesn't perform forensic analysis, and generally doesn't store forensic items at all.