Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for that, quoted (quickly!) so it can be preserved for posterity.

So what is your evidence for these claims?

Now, to your point: if they distrusted Conti and Vecchiotti the very best response to that would to ensure that the edfs were made available to everyone. That way if Conti and Vecchiotti did try to 'cheat' they'd have the evidence publicly available to denounce them. Instead they chose not to join all the other scientists in asking that that data be made available, a very curious decision for innocent people thinking the trial has been 'hijacked.'

Oh, and Stefanoni did indeed 'object'--in fact she refused to supply the data despite it being formally asked for here and in the court document Charlie Wilkes posted that I recently quoted as well.

That's because she's hiding something Machiavelli, just like she tried to hide the existence of the 2-4 other male contributors to the clasp and the EDFs would show that same pattern of dishonesty with all the rest of the DNA work which would destroy the case against Raffaele and Amanda and probably land her in a prison cell as well.

Stefanoni never "hid" any male contributor. She gave charts to the defence in 2008, exactly when she was requested, and there were all the peaks and alleles that of the profile she had extracted together with Prof. Potenza and the other parties in the incidents probatorio.

Moreover, there are no 2 or 4 male contributors. There are some experts who make this claim ex-post, it's a theory, what you have is single drop in alleles not profiles.

Then, there is another little problem. Here people like you and Halkides and Charlie Wilkes go on repeating that Stefanoni refused to send the raw data to C&V. But something my train of questions intends to highlight, is: what is your evidence that Stefanoni refused to provide data to C&V? In fact there is no evidence of this; the evidence is Conti & Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they had requested, and Vecchiotti praised Stefanoni's cooperation more than once. There is no mention about denial of requests in the C&V report. There is no mention of lack of raw data. There is no mention of lack of raw data or of requests and denials of raw data or lack of cooperation at all in the court testimonies of Vecchiotti and Conti.
So there is no element to say that Stefanoni denied data to C&V. It's baseless.
It's not something you csn find in the trial papers. There is not even a direct question by defence experts to obtain raw data for themselves in the papers (raw data in Tagliabracci's words was for the judge appoints experts to examine, not for the defence).

So, the question is, how is it that these pro-Knox supporters say the know that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't obtain raw data?

Who told them this?

Where did they get this information from?

 

[Diocletus]

Of course. If Italy is a mafia institution where authorities are gangster bisses who refer to some big padrino and all citizens are just accessories and complicit to some mechanism of corruption, then who cares. One whistle is enough. Maybe better nothing at all. Maybe you should send your dog.

Don't worry. We've got some guys on Strasbourg who are going to tell you how to fix everything. In ten years you'll be able to thank Amanda Knox for what she has done for Italy.

 

[Diocletus]

Stefanoni never "hid" any male contributor. She gave charts to the defence in 2008, exactly when she was requested, and there were all the peaks and alleles that of the profile she had extracted together with Prof. Potenza and the other parties in the incidents probatorio.

Moreover, there are no 2 or 4 male contributors. There are some experts who make this claim ex-post, it's a theory, what you have is single drop in alleles not profiles.

Then, there is another little problem. Here people like you and Halkides and Charlie Wilkes go on repeating that Stefanoni refused to send the raw data to C&V. But something my train of questions intends to highlight, is: what is your evidence that Stefanoni refused to provide data to C&V? In fact there is no evidence of this; the evidence is Conti & Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they had requested, and Vecchiotti praised Stefanoni's cooperation more than once. There is no mention about denial of requests in the C&V report. There is no mention of lack of raw data. There is no mention of lack of raw data or of requests and denials of raw data or lack of cooperation at all in the court testimonies of Vecchiotti and Conti.
So there is no element to say that Stefanoni denied data to C&V. It's baseless.
It's not something you csn find in the trial papers. There is not even a direct question by defence experts to obtain raw data for themselves in the papers (raw data in Tagliabracci's words was for the judge appoints experts to examine, not for the defence).

So, the question is, how is it that these pro-Knox supporters say the know that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't obtain raw data?

Who told them this?

Where did they get this information from?

From stefanoni, who testified that the raw data was never provided.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.

Stefanoni never "hid" any male contributor. She gave charts to the defence in 2008, exactly when she was requested, and there were all the peaks and alleles that of the profile she had extracted together with Prof. Potenza and the other parties in the incidents probatorio.

Moreover, there are no 2 or 4 male contributors. There are some experts who make this claim ex-post, it's a theory, what you have is single drop in alleles not profiles.

Then, there is another little problem. Here people like you and Halkides and Charlie Wilkes go on repeating that Stefanoni refused to send the raw data to C&V. But something my train of questions intends to highlight, is: what is your evidence that Stefanoni refused to provide data to C&V? In fact there is no evidence of this; the evidence is Conti & Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they had requested, and Vecchiotti praised Stefanoni's cooperation more than once. There is no mention about denial of requests in the C&V report. There is no mention of lack of raw data. There is no mention of lack of raw data or of requests and denials of raw data or lack of cooperation at all in the court testimonies of Vecchiotti and Conti.
So there is no element to say that Stefanoni denied data to C&V. It's baseless.
It's not something you csn find in the trial papers. There is not even a direct question by defence experts to obtain raw data for themselves in the papers (raw data in Tagliabracci's words was for the judge appoints experts to examine, not for the defence).

So, the question is, how is it that these pro-Knox supporters say the know that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't obtain raw data?
Who told them this?

Where did they get this information from?

Machiavelli - you need to pick one stream of argumentation and stick to that stream. You argue everything, as the highlights show.

What about the Presdient of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, is he also a criminal?

 

[Machiavelli]

From stefanoni, who testified that the raw data was never provided.

Stefanoni testified she denied a request of raw data from Conti & Vecchiotti? On what day?

 

[Draca]

Stefanoni testified she denied a request of raw data from Conti & Vecchiotti? On what day?

Hellmann sent repeated letters to Stefanoni requesting she provide the files needed by C & V.

 

[Kaosium]

Stefanoni never "hid" any male contributor. She gave charts to the defence in 2008, exactly when she was requested, and there were all the peaks and alleles that of the profile she had extracted together with Prof. Potenza and the other parties in the incidents probatorio.

Here is the explanation of what she did from the C&V report, including representations from her RTIGF report where she tried to pretend that all peaks not belonging to Meredith Kercher or Raffaele Sollecito were 'stutter.' Thus she tried to hide the existence of the other several contributors by pretending they were artifacts of the measuring process.

For crissakes she didn't even label those peaks and give heights

Question (Prof. Pascali): “There a lot of peaks with neither a name nor a number of R.S.U.[=R.F.U.?]; can you give us the lot files so we can interpret them?“

Answer (Dr. Stefanoni) (pp.100-101) “So as you correctly say, the height, or rather the indication, to put it better, is, as you rightly point out, not recorded for certain peaks appearing in this electropherogram; it’s obviously true that we can see that they aren’t there, but this is for a simple reason, because since I interpreted this mix, I obviously took it as my responsibility to regard these alleles, so to speak, or these peaks, as insignificant, because from my point of view they’re stutter, they’re artifacts that are absolutely described and measured, quantified both in the literature and in the kit that I use.”

Incidentally, it looks to me like Professor Pascali asking for the 'lot files' is a request for the edfs, I can't think of what else he might be talking about and the edfs (or 'raw data') would provide the information he wanted.

Moreover, there are no 2 or 4 male contributors. There are some experts who make this claim ex-post, it's a theory, what you have is single drop in alleles not profiles.

Looking at the Y-STR results and employing a 50 RFU threshold there are at least three males who contributed alleles to the sample. Employing the protocols Stefanoni used on the knife blade, best described as anything at all that shows up---off the top of my head one of them was on the order of 15 RFUs--there's a total of five males who contributed to the sample. I've posted before how this can be determined, you're welcome to review those posts.

Then, there is another little problem. Here people like you and Halkides and Charlie Wilkes go on repeating that Stefanoni refused to send the raw data to C&V. But something my train of questions intends to highlight, is: what is your evidence that Stefanoni refused to provide data to C&V? In fact there is no evidence of this;

I recently posted how it is known that Stefanoni never coughed up the edfs, you're welcome to review my recent posts on the subject.

the evidence is Conti & Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they had requested, and Vecchiotti praised Stefanoni's cooperation more than once.

I've never seen a credible source suggest this, I do vaguely recall something being posted long ago from Italian media that looked like it came from the PR department of the Polizia Scientifica which I gave the consideration it deserved. Acid test: you're the 'side' with all the translators, why not post the trial transcript where either Conti or Vecchiotti made statements that you construed as 'praising Stefanoni's cooperation more than once.' That's necessary due to the body of the C&V report suggesting otherwise as does Vecchiotti's comments in the appeals court and of course the fact Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti's commission had to be extended for a month due to not receiving data from Stefanoni in a timely manner.

There is no mention about denial of requests in the C&V report. There is no mention of lack of raw data. There is no mention of lack of raw data or of requests and denials of raw data or lack of cooperation at all in the court testimonies of Vecchiotti and Conti.

Yes, there is. As I noted earlier, in the trial transcript where Vecchiotti complains about not having received the negative controls from Stefanoni she mentions something to the effect of the defense wanted the raw data as well. It was you who originally posted that transcript, why don't you review it so you stop saying things that aren't true that I have good reason to think you know aren't true?

So there is no element to say that Stefanoni denied data to C&V. It's baseless.
It's not something you csn find in the trial papers. There is not even a direct question by defence experts to obtain raw data for themselves in the papers (raw data in Tagliabracci's words was for the judge appoints experts to examine, not for the defence).

I just posted where the defense sciency-types all concurred that C&V should receive the raw data. I know they didn't receive it because in the body of their report they say they had to ask for electropherograms with peak-area data on it which would be totally unnecessary had they received the raw data: they could have run those themselves. Vecchiotti saying she never received the negative controls would be impossible had she gotten the raw data: those too are contained there as should be obvious.

So, the question is, how is it that these pro-Knox supporters say the know that Conti and Vecchiotti didn't obtain raw data?

Who told them this?

Where did they get this information from?

Already answered above, and I will take this opportunity to note that you saying these things proves without a doubt you've no idea of what the raw data (edfs 'electronic data files' or .fsa files) is or how valuable it is to evaluating forensic DNA work.

 

[Dan O.]

Here is the testimony of Marco Marzan on 23 June 2009

He was asked if there was cat's blood or spots of cat's blood in the apartment before he left for the weekend. He replied no as far as he remembered.

scroll down......

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/

Isn't it amazing how testimonies change with time. Only 2 weeks after the murder one of the boys is remembering that the cat's blood was there before they left for vacation. Two years later and one of them can't remember if it was there or not. Someone ought to be able to spin this into a sign of guilt for sure.

BTW, Do you understand your duty as tag master for this thread?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hellmann sent repeated letters to Stefanoni requesting she provide the files needed by C & V.

As far as I know Hellmann sent only one letter.
And this proves nothing.
Where is the evidence of alleged denial and hiding data from Conti & Vecchiotti? When they said they obtained all data they had requested, and they give no mention about missing raw data.

 

[Machiavelli]

(skip - not read... jump to this point) That's necessary due to the body of the C&V report suggesting otherwise as does Vecchiotti's comments in the appeals court and of course the fact Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti's commission had to be extended for a month due to not receiving data from Stefanoni in a timely manner.
(...)

You seem to be confused on this point, too. First, it would make no difference whether they had to delay or not, but the real point is you are mistaken: Conti & Vecchiotti, on May 20. 2011 asked for a 40-days delay, the reason they gave was not that Stefanoni was being to uncooperative or too slow, but instead - so they explained - because they had made lately a request for documentation to the Mobile Squad of Perugia in order to obtain police minutes of the collection of the knife. They had obtained them only a week previously, so they were late with the job.
This is what they said - the reason was late documentation from the Perugia Mobile Squad - was not that Stefanoni was being slow or uncooperative, the reason they brought had nothing to do with Stefanoni.

 

[Dan O.]

As far as I know Hellmann sent only one letter.
And this proves nothing.
Where is the evidence of alleged denial and hiding data from Conti & Vecchiotti? When they said they obtained all data they had requested, and they give no mention about missing raw data.

You keep repeating this. Are you prepared to back it up with excerpts from the transcripts?

What I remember from reading those transcripts is that Hellmann questioned if they had received all of the information that they had requested. Their response was that they had received enough.

Do you understand that there is a difference between "everything" and "enough"?

 

[Kaosium]

As far as I know Hellmann sent only one letter.
And this proves nothing.
Where is the evidence of alleged denial and hiding data from Conti & Vecchiotti? When they said they obtained all data they had requested, and they give no mention about missing raw data.

Show us where they said they 'obtained all data they requested.'

We've shown you where they officially requested the raw data and as Diocletus pointed out Stefanoni did testify she never turned over the 'raw data.' If that was taken from before the independent experts requested it, then we still know they didn't receive the raw data due to Vecchiotti complaining in court (and thus after the generation of her report) about not receiving the negative controls which is incompatible with Stefanoni having turned that data over. Instead of claims that the negative controls were deposited in 2008 Comodi would have just said 'use the raw data we gave you--are you morons?'

So regardless of where that 'quote' comes from (and I'm betting it's not a court appearance!) we know it's inaccurate due to the above. Without doubt the edfs were requested by Conti and Vecchiotti and without doubt they didn't receive them.

However I would still like to know where that 'quote' of yours came from, I've a fleeting association of it with Maundy Gregory's site and a discussion Chris Halkides was involved in there so I might be able to dig it up if you're not so inclined...

 

[Bill Williams]

September 5 and 6, 2011, were not good days for Patrizia Stefanoni in the Hellman court.

This is from: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

September 5, 2011

Stefanoni produces electropherograms belonging to another court case and tries to pass them off as belonging to this case.
Raffaele Sollecito 2014 Appeal Document page 257

Relativamente ai pochi documenti inerenti i controlli positivi e negativi depositati durante l’udienza del 5 settembre 2011 (controllo neg.doc, controllo pos.doc, I Sample Info REP.36-B.doc, II prova 36-B.doc, II Sample Info REP. 36-B.doc, Rep.165-B.doc), si segnala che:
1) dal file I Sample InfoREP.36-B.doc può essere dedotto che il controllo negativo (ID778) e il controllo positivo (ID777) siano controlli di qualità relativi alla sessione di analisi del reperto ID771 (traccia B del reperto 36, coltello);
2) gli elettroferogrammi di questi controlli non sono stati forniti e quindi non è possibile valutarli;
3) vengono forniti invece gli elettroferogrammi di un controllo negativo (ID732) ed uno positivo (ID731) di cui tuttavia non è possibile risalire a quale sessione di lavoro si riferiscano né a quale procedimento (potrebbero in realtà essere controlli di un altro caso giudiziario);
4) del reperto 165B-gancetto non viene fornito alcun controllo né positivo né negativo: a tutt’oggi non esiste ancora alcuna evidenza che esistano controlli di qualità di PCR relativamente a questo reperto;
5) è pur tuttavia improbabile che i controlli 731 e 732 siano riferiti al gancetto, dal momento che, se come si auspica la numerazione dei campioni è progressiva, devono essere precedenti al reperto 36-B (771), quindi precedenti al 13 novembre 2007; il gancetto è stato invece analizzato dal 29 dicembre 2007 in avanti.

In conclusione, può affermarsi che la sentenza impugnata sia caduta in un gravissimo travisamento di una prova decisiva, che, ove correttamente valutata, avrebbe permesso di accertare l’avvenuta contaminazione da laboratorio.

September 6, 2011

Stefanoni admits she didn’t provide the raw data to the independent experts. p253
Dalla Vedova: The raw data, several times our consultant asked us to request for them to be submitted and we did so, can you tell us in a few words what this raw data is and if this data is available today in the case files?
Stefanoni: So, the raw data is not available in the case files, because they were never, let’s say, handed over. I can explain what they are…

 

[anglolawyer]

And the subject?
Don't you notice a change of subject?
"the experts [C&V] proceed to request".
Who is the subject? It seems to me the subject here are Conti and Vecchiotti. We already know Conti and Vecchiotti made a request of raw data. We don't know how their mail exchange ended, we don't know if they obtained the data, if they changed idea or else, what we know for sure is that Conti and Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they requested and were satisfied with the cooperation.
But from the phrase you quote above, which has Conti and Vecchiotti as subjects, who, you deduce, will get the raw data?
The judge appointed experts, or the defence?
You can read it: the defence are not going to be the ones who will get the data.
How is it, that you expect the raw data to be given to the defence?

Conti and Vechiotti, of course, would be the recipients of the raw data but there is no reason to suppose the defence consultants (the ones who initiated the request) would be barred from interacting with it or, if not that, being present when C-V did. The picture that emerges is clear enough to the fair-minded observer, Mach. This request was made on 5th April 2011 and the independent experts next convened on 30th May 2011 (in the absence of the parties' consultants). In the mean time there were the exchanges between Hellman and Stefanoni which Candace Dempsey reported and which someone helpfully quoted above. Stefanoni objected to providing the raw data (note that she did not voice any objection on 5th April) because it was an unusual request, and because the data might be interfered with, both obviously bogus reasons.

My understanding of C-V saying they had what they needed is simply their way of saying Stefanoni's work was incapable of proving any material fact in the proceedings and nothing the EDFs could conceivably contain could alter that view.

ETA I now see multiple ninjas above. Sorry folks. I am sorry to see Mach maintaining this nonsense. He can't afford to concede the tiniest point because that would be like a brick coming loose in the Hoover Dam (they made it out of bricks, right?) - a trickle then a flood.

 

[Numbers]

The boys that lived there spoke of promising to clean up all the blood from the cat before they left for the holiday.

ETA: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb.../11/14/quelle-chiavi-per-una-messinscena.html

The line numbers correspond to the batch number in:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...n-lab-data-violation-defendants-human-rights/

1.a Blood from downstairs (bed, etc.) and MK reference were DNA quantified (Run 543) & analyzed 5 Nov. 2007.
1.b MK rape-kit and some outside blood were DNA quantified (Run 544) & analyzed 6 Nov. 2007.
1.c AK, RS, & PL reference, down & upstairs light switches, etc. were DNA quantified (QF1) and analyzed 6 Nov. 2007.
2.a DNA lab data from 7 to 12 November were not provided to the defense.
2.b DNA lab data quantified 13? Nov. 2007 (QF2) RS clothing, flat, (QF3) the kitchen knife; 14 Nov. 2007 (QF4) RS clothing, flat; towel from cottage.
3. DNA lab data quantified (Runs 549 & 550) 26 Nov. 2007: MK bra, AK purse, RS Audi & Flat; (Run 551) 29 Nov. 2007: cottage towels, etc.
4. DNA lab data from 13? - 18 December: ~1/2 from Guede's flat; ~1/2 from crime scene cottage including murder room.
5. DNA lab data quantified (Run 570) 3 Jan. 2008, includes MK purse, bra clasps.

Note that the downstairs blood and the Meredith Kercher reference seemed to receive the same priority for DNA profiling. Wouldn't it make more sense for the rape-kit to be DNA profiled before the downstairs blood? (Or is there some technical reason for the delay?)

Why would the cops have given the downstairs such high priority?
My speculation is that they were targeting the downstairs boys, such as MK's boyfriend, initially as suspects.

Could the downstairs blood DNA profiles have shown an unknown male sub-Saharan African? The profile could have been from the substrate, not from the blood, if you believe it was from the cat (which was not dripping blood, according to Marzan's testimony). And the police knew that AK worked at a bar for a person from Africa. If an African DNA profile was seen in the (unknown to us) downstairs data, how soon would the police have known this in relation to when they organized the interrogation of AK and RS? And this is all merely a speculative theory of mine, trying to see how the police could have developed a 2+2=5 theory that would tie in PL, AK, and RS to the murder/rape.

 

[Kaosium]

You seem to be confused on this point, too. First, it would make no difference whether they had to delay or not, but the real point is you are mistaken: Conti & Vecchiotti, on May 20. 2011 asked for a 40-days delay, the reason they gave was not that Stefanoni was being to uncooperative or too slow, but instead - so they explained - because they had made lately a request for documentation to the Mobile Squad of Perugia in order to obtain police minutes of the collection of the knife. They had obtained them only a week previously, so they were late with the job.
This is what they said - the reason was late documentation from the Perugia Mobile Squad - was not that Stefanoni was being slow or uncooperative, the reason they brought had nothing to do with Stefanoni.

We know from the (e-mail) correspondence between Hellmann's office and Stefanoni that she was dragging her heels on turning over data to them. We also know from the body of the report that C&V didn't receive some of the electropherograms until May 11th:

Sample A electropherogram with peak heights

And on 11 May 2011, the electropherogram relating to the electrophoretic run of the amplified DNA from sample A was sent to us via e-mail, on which the heights and areas of the peaks are indicated:

They were appointed in January:

On January 22, 2011, the undersigned Prof. Stefano Conti and Prof. Carla Vecchiotti, Specialists in Forensic Medicine employed in the Forensic Medicine Section of the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences of the Univeristy of Rome – La Sapienza, were appointed by Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann of the Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia, Criminal Section, to conduct laboratory investigations relative to criminal case no. 10/2010 R.G. in order to provide answers to the following inquiries:

“Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:

“whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification“
“if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination.”

As it was necessary to conduct investigations outside of the presence of the Office [i.e. Court], 90 days were allotted, with a subsequent extension, for the submission of the expert report.

Ninety days from January 22nd, 2011 is about April 20th or so, which is before April 29th when they finally got the electropherograms with peak heights and and well before they received the electropherograms with peak area. If you're curious, the peak heights (and peak areas) are necessary to make a determination of whether a peak is an allele or stutter/other artifact etc and absolutely necessary for them to do their report:

On 29 April 2011, the electropherogram relating to the electrophoretic run of the amplified DNA from sample A was sent to us on CD-rom, on which the heights of the allele peaks are indicated:

Thus it may very well be true that the Squadra Mobile dragged their heels as well, but since it is proven that they didn't get the necessary data from Stefanoni until after their original 90 day commission expired that just makes the Squadra Mobile even more guilty than Stefanoni, it doesn't make her innocent of heel-dragging.

 

[Draca]

As far as I know Hellmann sent only one letter.
And this proves nothing.
Where is the evidence of alleged denial and hiding data from Conti & Vecchiotti? When they said they obtained all data they had requested, and they give no mention about missing raw data.

The multiple letters are documented here:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

20th April 2011 – handwritten note from Judge Hellmann to Dr. Stefanoni:

~~~~
Dear Dr. Stefanoni,

I received your note dated 20 April and take note of its content. I ask you however, to please kindly confer with the official experts on this matter, to whom copies of your and my responses have contemporaneously been sent, delivering directly to them that which they deem useful to acquire for the purpose of completing the review, subject to clarification of the perplexity expressed by yourself.

Thank you and cordial greetings,

The President
Claudio Pratillo Hellmann
~~~~

To translate the legalese:
Hellmann to Stefanoni - Turn over the files! #&%#&^%#

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Incidentally, it looks to me like Professor Pascali asking for the 'lot files' is a request for the edfs, I can't think of what else he might be talking about and the edfs (or 'raw data') would provide the information he wanted.

Incidentally, do you know Prof Pascali is under trial for writing a fraudulet expert's report? Guess who was the expert who caught him.

Looking at the Y-STR results and employing a 50 RFU threshold there are at least three males who contributed alleles to the sample. Employing the protocols Stefanoni used on the knife blade, best described as anything at all that shows up---off the top of my head one of them was on the order of 15 RFUs--there's a total of five males who contributed to the sample. I've posted before how this can be determined, you're welcome to review those posts.

You seem obsessed with RFUs, as if they were an amount of substance. But RFU are relative units. My understanding is that you cannot infer a quantization from peaks measure in RFUs.

Bear in mind that Potenza and other defence experts were summoned to the bra clasp analisys and that was an incidente probatorio to which the defence didn't object.

I've never seen a credible source suggest this, I do vaguely recall something being posted long ago from Italian media that looked like it came from the PR department of the Polizia Scientifica which I gave the consideration it deserved.

An Italian media that looked like the Polizia Scientifica.
Your fantasy doesn't know borders.

This is La Nazione (the paper for which Mario Spezi also worked). It's in the Umbria pages.

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/05/21/509949-processo_meredith_risultati_della_nuova_perizia_entro_giugno.shtml

(...) Intanto in Aula, stamani, gli esperti hanno spiegato di avere ottenuto tutti i dati scientifici richiesti.

Il nuovo termine per gli accertamenti è stato fissato dai giudici su richiesta dei loro periti che nei giorni scorsi avevano chiesto una proroga di 40 giorni per rispondere ai quesiti posti.

Hanno comunque evidenziato la necessità di poter consultare il verbale relativo al sequestro del coltello e le deposizioni nel processo di primo grado degli agenti che seguirono la perquisizione in casa di Sollecito.

Documenti che la Corte ha disposto vengano ora forniti ai periti.

Davanti ai giudici uno degli esperti ha sottolineato la "massima collaborazione" fornita dalla polizia scientifica che ha eseguito gli accertamenti tecnici nel corso delle indagini.

Another source:

http://www.leggo.it/index.php?p=articolo&id=122817

Acid test: you're the 'side' with all the translators, why not post the trial transcript where either Conti or Vecchiotti made statements that you construed as 'praising Stefanoni's cooperation more than once.'

Because I don't have the transcript of May 20. 2011.

However Vecchiotti repeats that Stefanoni was "cooperative" even on July 30. (the very same cross questioning when she says she didn't found the negative controls in the e-mails).

That's necessary due to the body of the C&V report suggesting otherwise as does Vecchiotti's comments in the appeals court and of course the fact Drs. Conti and Vecchiotti's commission had to be extended for a month due to not receiving data from Stefanoni in a timely manner.

I correct myself (slightly) on this: indeed, as I said, C&V requested the 40 days delay because they wanted to have minutes from the Perugia Mobile Squad, not from Stefanoni. However, they hadn't asked to that date yet, they asked the judge an order to access them on that very same May 20. hearing.

Yes, there is. As I noted earlier, in the trial transcript where Vecchiotti complains about not having received the negative controls from Stefanoni she mentions something to the effect of the defense wanted the raw data as well.It was you who originally posted that transcript, why don't you review it so you stop saying things that aren't true that I have good reason to think you know aren't true?

But Vecchiotti actually does not say she requested them; actually she implicitly admits that she did not ask for negative controls. Not only that: on both the July 30. and on the on Sept. 5 court hearings, PM Comodi repeatedly states that there was no request of negative controls in the e-mail exchange between Vecchiotti and Stefanoni; she points out how Stefanoni attached those files that she had not already deposited with the court. The negative controls had been already deposited by Stefanoni on Oct. 4. 2008 (knife) and Oct. 8. 2008 (bra clasp).

I just posted where the defense sciency-types all concurred that C&V should receive the raw data.

Oh well, if they say that they "should"...

I know they didn't receive it because in the body of their report they say they had to ask for electropherograms with peak-area data on it which would be totally unnecessary had they received the raw data: they could have run those themselves. Vecchiotti saying she never received the negative controls would be impossible had she gotten the raw data: those too are contained there as should be obvious.

I assume in order to run it herself she would have needed the same software. Yet there isn't a complaint on the part of Vecchiotti for the missing raw data. There is no "deduction" from this absence. There is no mention of raw data in her report. Nor in her testimony. There is no note about Stefanoni being uncooperative. There is no note or complaint about a denial of data requests.
On the contrary, we also have diametrically opposite comments, saying that the Polizia Scientifica offered a "complete cooperation" ("massima collaborazione") and saying that they obtained all data they requested. We also have Vecchiotti repeating this comment again saying "cooperative" about Stefanoni on July 30. 2011.
There is no complaint about missing data at all. Vecchiotti and Conti said they were satisfied with the data and didn't want more from the Polizia Scientifica, on May 20. 2011.

Already answered above, and I will take this opportunity to note that you saying these things proves without a doubt you've no idea of what the raw data (edfs 'electronic data files' or .fsa files) is or how valuable it is to evaluating forensic DNA work.

Well I know fairly well what Stefanoni explained, because she talked about raw data at lenght in court; she opened it and showed a data file, explaining how it works, graphs frames etc.
But the fact is that I am just not interested in "how valuable it is to evaluating forensic DNA work"; I am interested in that the defence did obtain what they requested, they made their strategic choices, the trial took shape through years under due procedure; the purpose of this trial is not to evaluate forensic DNA work. It was only at a certain point that the defence thought they need a change of strategy line, they should try to focus on the DNA discourse and attempt to create a kind of "narrative" in a way oriented at putting in discussion the DNA findings; to "evaluate forensic work" as how you put it. They decided to take this dangerous road only when they realized they were cornered within the court proceedings.
But not all games remain open. Previous choices are part of the defence historical record as well. At a certain point, the trial is not supposed to steer to follow the tracks of focusing on "evaluating forensic DNA work", just because it is in the defence's interest to put the forensic under trial instead of themselves. The trial has already taken a shape and another focus, another interest. The defence attorneys were never so keeen to request raw data, only one lawyer made one confuse request two years later, then they didn't request them in further hearings or at the appeal; and this is noted. And at that point it would make anyway no difference.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"We can assert that, relative to markers D8S1179, D21S11, D19S433, [and] D5S818, there was an erroneous interpretation of the peaks present in the electrophoretic plot, in that peaks with height over 50 RFU (D19S433: peak 14 ↑ 54) or which exceeded the threshold of 15% of the major allele (D8S1179: Peak 14 ↑ 53 (39.09% of allele 15); D21S11: Peak 29 ↑ 94 (15.58% of allele 30) or were not in stutter position (D5S818) and which, therefore, should have been considered alleles."

Now that I have reread this passage from the Conti-Vecchiotti report, Judge Nencini's defense of her over the issue of a suspect-centered approach comes into sharper focus.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Thus it may very well be true that the Squadra Mobile dragged their heels as well, but since it is proven that they didn't get the necessary data from Stefanoni until after their original 90 day commission expired that just makes the Squadra Mobile even more guilty than Stefanoni, it doesn't make her innocent of heel-dragging.

But actually Vecchiotti and COnti did not talk directly neither with the Squadra Mobile neither with Stefanoni. They only talked with Hellmann. And it was the court's office who contacted Stefanoni and the Squadra Mobile.
The request for raw data sent to Stefanoni's lab is of Apr. 14. 2011. Stefanoni's response was Apr. 20. And it was still to Hellmann.
Hellmann apparently got lost, didn't know what they were talking about, gives a confuse and rather vague polite answer in copies to all. Stefanoni in her letter asked Vecchiotti to indicate files specifications; Hellmann possibly had no clue.
This is Apr. 20, and on May. 20 Vecchiotti and Conti are there to request a further 40 days because they want a judge order to turn them the minutes from the Squadra Mobile. And they say they are satisfied with the data they obtained; they say they don't want other files.
They are, obviously, not interested. Thus, apparently contadicting all statements from experts about how important and necessary those data are.
Vechiotti and Conti are not interested in the data: what other example do you need before concluding that maybe they are not always so interesting.
If they are not interesting for C&V, why should they be necesarily interesting for a judge like Nencini, or for Bongiorno?
The fact is that it is no true that documents full of information are so interesting in a trial. They may be interesting or not, depending if you think they are useful, if you have a strategy to use them, if they have a purpose. It is not a scientific discussion it's a trial. Things have pragmatic use. The purpose determines the importance of things in the end.