acbytesla said:
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
I'm thoroughly convinced that Stefanoni lied several times. She lied about that her lab had never had contamination issues.
Bah. Quote please. (If you manage to quote, then prove it false)
Welcome back, Machiavelli. I see your memory has failed you (again!). Here is where Massei renders Stefanoni on this point:
Massei PMF 220 said:
In response to a specific question on this point, Dr. Stefanoni declared that she had been working as a biologist for seven years, had always used the same methodology, and had never heard that any problem of contamination of exhibits had occurred.
I see that someone
here has thoughtfully archived the actual testimony Massei paraphrased above:
From Stefanoni's testimony May 2rd, 2009:
PM Mignini: Listen, how many years have you been doing this work?
Stefanoni Nearly 7 years.
PM Mignini: Approximately 7 years. Have you worked on cases similar to this?
Stefanoni Yes. Yes, yes.
PM Mignini: Many similar cases?
Stefanoni Yes, various cases of similar complexity, basically, yes.
PM Mignini: Do you remember if you’ve always followed the same method?
Stefanoni Yes.
PM Mignini: In the way you basically collected the samples and then in the analysis?
Stefanoni Yes.
PM Mignini: Right, do you remember any confirmed contamination of samples?
Stefanoni No, such a problem has never been highlighted to me.
PM Mignini: So you have absolutely no recollection [of such a thing]… and you have always followed this same method that you have described to us today?
Stefanoni Yes.
(May 23, 2009, pp. 54-55).
Now if you read the rest of that page you'll see that in batch 4, well B11 showed a count of 34.30, meaning on the 34th cycle it registered human DNA as opposed to going 50 cycles without finding any which is what is supposed to happen, being as it's a negative control and there should be
no DNA in it at all. In addition there were over a hundred samples with human DNA where the results were withheld, some of those quite likely because they'd show the copious contamination in that lab which would show up employing
LT/LCN protocols.
acbytesla said:
She lied about the Luminol footprints and the presence of blood
Where? There isn't a single false statement from Stefanoni about luminol footprints. And there isn't any false statement about blood.
Yes there is:
Massei PMF 256-7 said:
With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (pages 73 and 74).
As Massei renders it, through quoting Dr Sara Gino, the
polizia scientifica did TMB tests on the luminol hits, Stefanoni omitted those from her comprehensive technical report, the
RTIGF. As Dr. Gino also notes, when asked in court about the luminol hits Stefanoni claimed they only laid luminol there, which at that time no one could prove differently being as Stefanoni had omitted those results from her report. However when the defense was
finally given the work records and other documents it was found that all those luminol hits had been tested with TMB and all were negative outside the one that overlapped where Rudy Guede's
real bloody shoeprint had been processed and cleaned by the
polizia scientifica six weeks before.
Total bs. It was Vecchiotti here who was dramatically caught lying.
What on earth could this possibly be referring to? How can anyone accuse Dr. Vecchiotti of lying when they excuse
so many false statements made by Stefanoni and others when there's definite reason to believe they were not true and were of crucial relevance like whether the luminol hits had tested negative for blood with TMB or whether she was covering up lab contamination?
Machiavelli said:
It's ridiculous, your mind makes up now on this as a habit. On May 20. 2011 Vecchiotti and Conti themselves stated - before Hellmann - that the police lab had sent them all the data they had requested, and they praised their "complete cooperation". Vecchiotti also repeated on Oct. 30 2011 Stefanoni was "correct and cooperative". There isn't a single refusal of a request from Stefanoni in the record.
It's the simple truth.
That's a pathetic response, Machiavelli. The independent experts needed their commission extended by a month because Stefanoni had failed to turn over records in a timely manner. Provide a quote
and the correct context for your assertion above.
Machiavelli said:
What is true is Stefanoni made DNA tests under the incidente probatorio statute, the defence expert was there, but nobody objected about lack of negative controls and nobody came to ask for electronic data.
There wasn't any request about EDF from the defence for two years. The requests the defence made at the preliminary hearing were promptly satisfied, as Bongiorno admits. The first time a request of electronic raw data was made was at the end of the Massei trial from Dalla Vedova, and was unintellegible. That was the first mention, oral and not understood by the judge, and was not repeated. No instance was submitted again.
Utter and complete nonsense. The independent experts confirmed in court that the defense asked for the EDFs and the independent experts asked for them as well. That's what led to the exchange of e-mails between Stefanoni and Hellmann's office which can be read
here.
acbytesla said:
It's worth noting that not a single sample of DNA that might incriminate Amanda or Raffaele was available for retesting.
Machiavelli said:
I don't know what you mean with such statement. The bra clasp DNA sample was amplified more than once, and yielded two sequences each time (includes the Y haplotype).
The tests were done under the procedure known as incidente probatorio, art. 360 of the Code, that qualifies a test as a non-repeatable event.
He (probably) means that when they went to retest the bra clasp it had deteriorated due to Stefanoni's storage practices and was rendered useless for further DNA testing. When they retested the kitchen knife they didn't find the DNA of Meredith Kercher either.
