De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. The defense asked for the documentation for the results and didn't get what little it did until after July 30th, 2009 for a trial that started around October of 2008.
The investigation under the incdente probatorio started in Nov. 2007 and anded in June 2008. The defence experts could ask whatever they wanted and they were granted access to the laboratory. But they didn't request not access the evidence. Only prof. Vinci came.
Everybody in the legal world in Italy knows that evidence documentation is performed discussed by parties during the
incidente probatorio when this procedure is applied, while no scientific expert discussion is usually admitted at the trial.
They complained they didn't receive all the documentation they needed (as per Massei) and asked that independent experts be appointed to evaluate the DNA evidence for the appeal.
Conti and Vecchiotti testified they had received all the documentation they had requested, and they praised the police forensics for being completely cooperative. They testified this on May 21. 2011.
Those independent experts asked for all data pertaining to the bra clasp and knife blade and did not receive what little they did until after their commission expired, requiring an extension.
Thse experts requested an extension because in May 2011 they made a further request of documentation, and it was to the Peugia Mobile squad (NOT Stefanoni's laboratory). It was not about the blade but about the police reports about the knife collection (which was prformed by the Perugia Mobile squad, not by the Rome forensics).
Do you remember when I quoted and showed the dates of when they received the data including peak area from Stefanoni and how it was after their original commission expired?
And so what? This means nothing. Vecchiotti and Conti made a series of requests, not just one. That one was only the last one.
And it was fulfilled.
Delays and shifting of terms are just the mst common of the common things in the Italian legal system, if this is what you complain about talking about Stefanoni, it's absolutely ridiculous.
The facts are, Vecchiotti praised Stefanoni for presenting her all the documentation she had requested.
By the way, you should also recall that there is independent evidence that Vecchiotti and Conti are liars, they cheated and lied in theor report and testimonies, don't forget that.
Do you recall posting the part of the transcript where Vecchiotti noted that the defense wanted the EDFs too?
They noted they wanted the data from
the tests that Vecchiotti was about to perform (that means the "new" samples tested by Vecchiotti, including trace "I")
There wasn't - and couldn't be in Vecchiotti's report - any defence request about the raw data
from the tests performed by Stefanoni.
Do you recall the ridiculous lies told by Comodi about how including the EDFs (a CD) would make the case file too large?
Absolutely not, and there is absolutely no lie. Comodi only made perfectly reasonable arguments, and anyway, if the defence didn't agree, they may well have explained the juge about their problem; the judge (judge Micheli in the first place) obviously recalled that the defence didn't request the data during the
incdidente probatorio.
Chris Halkides was posting about the edfs from nearly the time he started posting on this case here, which was December of 2009, and he is in contact with the defense consultants and knows what they wanted and why.
Chris Halkides may know what they
told him.
The trial papers prove the defence didnt request the data until the end of the 2009 trial, and even then, they were not clear about wanting raw data and failed to explain the court what they wanted and why, and why they were unable to have them previously.
Regarding the TMB negatives, she did those tests in December of 2008 and omitted them from her comprehensive technical report, the RTIGF and it wasn't discovered they existed until that July 30th, 2009 disclosure dump for a trial that was mostly over (all of August is a recess).
The SALs were released when they were
requested.
They were released as the prosecution offered to release them - saying "yes" - only in 2009, precisely because the defence
did not request this documentation during the investigation. And let's point out that prof. Potenza was there when the tests on luminol prints were done, and (testimony says) he assisted to the whole work till the end.
You can go into 'Deny Everything' mode as that keeps the dingbats and dupes in line, but you and I know better. This type of nonsense won't work with the sorts of people who'll be looking at this case in the future, they're more than familiar with corrupt officials and recognize 'Deny Everything' mode.
There is nothing to deny. There is simply nothing!
There is nothing in your "facts" that supports your wild allegations.
