I anticipate that I won't follow your reasoning circles, where you will just repeat your theory about some interlocutor again and again.
You may only ask me questions about what I see; and you can ecpect my answer to be consistsnt. I can't answer for what Bill Williams sees.
Among things I see, there is a very simple reality: Vecchiotti is a fraud. She lied. She lied in her report, she lied in court.
Incidentally, it is also evident, to me, that Vecchiotti & Conti did not "demonstrate" anything (not even Stefanoni's purported "incompetence", which is not, and in my opinion on principle should not, ever be a discussion topic in the case; turning a trial into a discussion about Stefanoni's incompetence would be itself a cheating and a fraud: a trial must be focused on the suspect).
But clearly a very shocking element, to me, is the glaring obvious evidence that Vecchiotti is a liar and a fraud.
Just think about my point of view, the point of view of someone who has this evidence before his eyes: this is the first and main thing I would point at.
The evidence of Vecchiotti being a liar and a fraud is something incomparably more glaring and self-evident rather than an assessment on the academic qualifications or quality of some specialized trainings of Stefanoni. It's incomparable. It's like the Sun and the Moon. Evidence of Vecchiotti's fraud is shining and pervasive, was at the center in the history of proceedings like a sun within its solar system.
The people in this thread live in their own world. I don't care if they only see Stefanoni, go on ranting about "incompetence" etc., they may think this is the topic, their rants are void. I don't follow their delusion, I point at what I see.
You are either incredibly naive, or biased beyond hope of ever correcting YOUR delusional rantings. Here's a short list of Stefanoni's obvious incompetence:
#1 – Stefanoni's collection of the forensic evidence was such a joke, that when the video of her bumbling team ineptly collecting evidence was played in Hellmann's court, the video had spectators in court laughing aloud – you simply don't need to be an expert to grok that Stefanoni's bumbling forensic team was the Italian version of the Keystone Kops.
#2 – While laughing by a court's spectators has zero legal or scientific effect, most DNA and forensic experts who have viewed those same videos were far too shocked to laugh.
The cottage should have been PROPERLY processed in a matter of 4 days, or less. Yet, 46 days later Stefanoni's bumbling team returned and improperly bagged the bra clasp, which should have been first photographed in situs, then promptly picked up using sterile tweezers and promptly bagged, which of course didn't happen.
To neglect evidence for 46 days is bad enough, but it's inexcusable on Take-2 to totally botch the collection process, especially when dealing with LCN-DNA evidence.
#3 – both the knife and bra-clasp were LCN-DNA samples, and neither Stefanoni's lab or equipment were even designed to process LCN-DNA.
Even if Stefanoni had the right equipment to do LCN-DNA analysis, there wasn't enough DNA on the knife (36B) for Stefanoni to divide it up into even two parts. Dividing an LCN-DNA sample into 3 parts, which can be done with as few as 5 human cells, is preferable, but Stefanoni had too few cells (or none) to even divide the 36B sample into 2 parts.
As Stefanoni admitted on the stand (during the Hellmann trial), her test of 36B didn't conform with international standards, and thus it wasn't scientifically done.
---
I could go on and on about Stefanoni's obvious incompetence, but let's end this with Stefanoni's failure to turn over the Electronic Data Files (EDFs) to the defense. Massei ordered Stefanoni to turn over the EDFs, but she never complied.
Hellmann likewise ordered Stefanoni to turn over the EDFs, and again she didn't comply.
By international standards, the EDFs should be automatically given to the defense during the discovery phase (the EDFs are typically burned to a CD).
From the Hellmann trial we have this exchange between the prosecutor and Vecchiotti & Conti:
Prosecutor: In a moment let’s have a look at the delivery note. But even if you didn’t find them
didn’t you feel the need to ask Stefanoni for them?
Vecchiotti:
I asked Dr. Stefanoni twice for the electropherograms taking for granted that she would have included them.
Prosecutor: That she would have included the electropherograms for the negative controls?
Vecchiotti: No that she would have… that in the electropherograms there would be the samples, there would be the
negative controls, because why shouldn’t they be there?
Prosecutor: Yes but when did you notice that they weren’t there…
Conti S:
We asked for them again.
Prosecutor: Because then you’d have noticed that they weren’t there, right?
Vecchiotti: It’s obvious but it’s her responsibility to attach them, because why do they need to be asked for?
It shouldn’t be necessary to ask for them.
Prosecutor: You’re the expert Doctor.
Vecchiotti:
Look they don’t need to be requested in that case, they [NEGATIVE CONTROLS] should be produced by those who have them.
Prosecutor:
Is this also an international rule, universally recognized?
Vecchiotti:
That the negative controls are included, yes.
Prosecutor: Whatever, they should be included, and one time they forget to include them but they exist…
Conti S:
They were requested twice.
Prosecutor: …it’s good practice for the expert to ask for them…
Conti S:
In fact we asked for them twice.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
