You know what?
You are making up that "the prosecution must have rebutted". This is you inventing the rules.
Obviously not. Why should a statement before Micheli undermine something?
It's pure ridicule. Nobody has a "duty" of some kind to state a rebuttal of an alleged expression of a defence expert. And that anyway is completely irrelevant since the trial papers are made of transcripts that contain the direct testimony of Stefanoni, they are not made of interpretations and statements by Sarah Gino. Only what Stefanoni stated matters to the point. Sarah Gino matters zero.
Expert witnesses are also paid to provide opinions and their expertise. If you think that she is “corrupt” or that such opinion is a “lie” it’s up to you to prove it. You may say that, as long as you prove it. The facts are that Stefanoni told about false negatives on confirmatory tests on the luminol prints immediately in her first 2008 questioning; she also said that “normally we don’t do confirmatory tests on latent prints” because they expect them to turn out negative. To be fair, she doesn’t speak about TMB tests explicitly. So you may still claim that she didn’t mention specifically TMB tests. But nothing else.
Somehow you managed to miss the number of times that I corrected all of you on this forum. So let’s repeat what stays unchallenged like before: TMB tests are logically irrelevant because TMB is less sensitive and less specific than luminol, and also because they react to the same array of false negatives: there are no substances known to be reactive to luminol but not to TMB, certainly there is no substance with such property is known as probable or plausible good to explain bare footprints.
Hearing may 23, 2009, pages 148-149
Stefanoni was never caught lying. You are making u stuff. As for Vecchiotti, I can’t guess what you attempted to quote, but the only evidence of lying you will find in the C&V report in there will be Vecchiotti’s lying.
The fact that the sample was in the magnitude of hundreds of picograms is absolutely true, that happens to be a correct esteem. But in fact Stefanoni’s response was much more articulate and full of caveats. She also stated from the beginning that it was a low template sample, and I mean from the beginning. Your false narrative calling her a person “caught lying” is just making up stuff, nothing but stupid and childish invention.
"From the beginning" means before judge Micheli in 2008, page 21: Stefanoni is asked whether she thinks that peaks of the knife chart are “very low”, under what she would consider “at risk”, she answers “yes, yes, yes”. In the same Oct. 2008 hearing, just after the line when she answers the defense question about the magnitude (“hundreds of pictograms”) she is asked by the defence “this made think you think it could be a low copy number?” she answer “Yes it’s possible, of course!” (hearing of Oct. 8. P. 178).
Stefanoni already stated it was a low copy number, the esteem about hundreds of pictograms is correct (based on the Fluorimeter sensitivity and volume) and she did not say that in the way C&V report that, since previously she pointed out many caveats about the amount, saying she didn’t know. Dut the defence attorney wanted to know a rough esteem whether she thought it was like in the magnitude of pictograms or nanograms, and she said (correctly) she thought magnitude was the hundreds of pictograms.
Come on you are smart enough, you can understand. You can understand it makes absolutely no sense to lie about the method of quantification telling about a more sensitive method, given that the truth is that the profile was extracted with an instrument which is less sensitive, so it must have been even bigger, necessarily bigger than the minimum concentration threshold to be detected by the Fluorimeter.
I don't know what Potenza did but I do recall his analysis of Stefanoni's work was scathing. It is also apparent he realized that Stefanoni was lying about her interpretation of the bra clasp.
Well you should use his work not only to read what his opinions of Stefanoni are, but also consider it as a trial paper which he has signed, what he said and what he didn’t say is on the records, and he certainly had the possibility to witness all what Stefanoni did, hence, by definition Stefanoni did not hide any action she performed.
No, she wrote that there are extra alleles. But anyway, she made clear that her list of extra alleles and stutters was her interpretation and her own opinion, and she gave the chart – including the peaks heights - to be discussed before the judge.
Well, you are lying. You went through this, but you didn’t succeed in making any valid point.
The truth is Stefanoni had already provided the chart with all the peaks heights before the hearing of Oct. 8. 2008. This is evident from her testimony at pages 98-99-100.
She discussed with the other experts and she points out that there are peaks heights indicated on the charts, and she points out that “this is the information I was requested to write in the chart”.
I will conclude my post stating again in the most adamant fashion that all your allegations you brought here against Stefanoni are false. The fact that everything is made up is manifest, this response of mine alone includes quotes which belie you completely on a series of points, itself should show how your entire system of beliefs about the allegations on Stefanoni is false. You claim you took the time to read things, in fact it looks like you never got near to trial papers. What you do is a grotesque, nonsensical attempt of cherry picking and twisting, coupled with an adamant denial of the fact that it is obvious that Vecchiotti is a liar.
Let's sum up just a few of your errors:
- You ignore and you deny Stefanoni presented the whole charts of profile including the height peaks.
- You ignore the implications of the fact that Potenza took part to the porforming of the DNA tests on the knife.
- You falsely stated that Stefanoni attempted to make it look like a high template, while you denied and you ignored the truth that Stefanoni stated it was a low template sample already in 2008.
- You falsely asserted that Stefanoni maintained they didn't make any test in the corridoor, "only luminol" (while she actually carefully restricted the observation only to one specific point near the door, and discussed with the defence to understand the location they were asking about).
- You stated that the prosecution or Stefanoni were "caught lying", when there is absolutely zero trace of this in the papers, it's completely made up.
- You stated that the prosecution attempted to "hide" laboratory records, saying they released information only because were "ordered" to, while facts are the prosecution themselves let them know about the documentation and they themselves stated they were ready to give it to the defence.
- You omit and forget that the "differences" (omission in the report) like the TMB test not reported, has not been "discovered" by the defence but is insted information that was provided by Stefanoni and the prosecution temselves (you refuse to draw the due implications from that). Thus, it is nothing but a documental failure/imprecision, has nothing to do with fictional "catching" people "lying".
- You make up that the prosecution has a "duty of rebuttal" of Sarah Gino's statements, otherwise according to you they become "true" even thought they don't exist in the trial record, and that is complete making up stuff.
- You don't realize how your Vecchiotti-based accusation of "lying" about the "hundred of picograms" not only was shown to be incorrect, because through later calculation of the detection threashold of fluorimeter and volume it came out the esteem of magnitude was correct, but also above all because it is completely irrelevent, since it would make no sense as a "lie" (given the lower sensitivity of fluorimeter, given that Potenza was there during the test, and given that she had stated multiple times it was a low cop number).
