I would think providing false documentation to the court about tests carried out on the most critical piece of evidence in the trial, and repeating that falsehood in verbal testimony to the court, would be sufficient justification to think that she was either dishonest or incompetent.
I'm not sure there is false information reported in the RTGF report. We are only talking about item 36 B/C DNA quantification, the docuemnt doesn't report anything about it. DNA quantification of item 36 is left blank in the report template. At least in my photocopy.
This could be combined with the failure to keep contemporaneous records of the processing of the evidence (vacuum extraction protocol). Then this could be combined with the false testimony with regards to the TMB testing of Luminol positive stains. This could be combined with the incompetent handling when collecting the bra fastener. This could be combined with the false claim that she followed international standards when analysing the mixed DNA from the bra fastener.
No, it cannot be combined with anything.
I accept that there is a failure to document the use of Qbit fluorimeter. This can be defined as a documentation shortcoming. However this appears petty to me.
The other allegations are pointless or false. They don't exist. Let's see the claims.
Failure to keep full record of evidence processing, such is a criticism with a too wide spectrum, could be applied to any item on the same principle. The level of documentation was the same for every item and sample: there are no samples for which such details are specified.
This is something important to point out since at the same time, such criticism would be pointless
if it is carried on by the defence party, because nothing prevented prof. Potenza or other experts - representatives from that party - from requesting a better documentation or from documenting themselves the process, through videos or written observation. They had the opportunity to rise the documentation standard if they wanted to.
Then, second allegation, that is that Stefanoni presented a false testimony about TMB,
is just false.
It is a false claim. Plain false.
This is pure pro-Knox propaganda myth.
In fact, Stefanoni's team only did not point out in the report that TMB tests had been performed on the luminol stains; but Stefanoni did not present any false information in court. She never denied TMB test was performed. But not only that: in her 2008 testimony she stated that "several other tests" were done on the luminol stains, and also she said they came out negative for blood (or at least she implied the negative result, depending if you interpret her words as explicit or implicit).
She did not state specifically the TMB test, as far as I recall, but she said they have done "multiple kinds" of chemical tests on the luminol stains. IIRC she said that herself, just describing what they did without answering any particular question.
So she did not lie about this, and she did not hide a result neither (the defences could have asked her what kind of tests they did beyond luminol).
Not only that, but also, there is another thing one should note: if someone notes Stefanoni failed to specify that the luminol prints were TMB negative, they ought to also note that Stefanoni also failed to mention that
Knox's mop was TMB positive.
She didn't withold just purported "exculpatory" evidence, but also potential "incriminating" evidence of the same kind.
Final point: there is a pro-Knox myth that uses a specific misquote from Stefanoni. There was a moment in a court hearing when Maori asked Stefanoni what substance was laid down on the floor by forensics on a specific point. He was using a laser pen and he wanted to know about a very specific point on the threshold of Meredith's room. Stefanoni said "we laid only luminol there". She was meaning only one particular point where Maori was searching something particular (Sollecito's DNA allegedly "falling from the door").
The pro-Knox propagandists misquote the statement and try to manufacture "evidence " about this.
The alleged incompetent handling of the bra fastener appears to me as something very objectionable, since the item was obviously picked from a dirty floor, and not contaminated from outside the room, but at the same time it is correct to point out that Stefanoni did not change her gloves for every item. The Scientific police simply objected saying "we don't have enough gloves stock", which is credible. Judge Micheli found that objectionable.
I don't think it's something that could be "used" to discredit Stefanoni as a witness.
Same goes for international standards. Those standards are "guidelines" but some of such guidelines are manifestly contrary to Italian law. The interpretation of a peak as stutter rather than allele, for example, as for Italian jurispridence cannot be carried on
independently and
in isolation from other pieces of information (see Chieffi's legal point). That is for example you may not interpret the X-profile
independently from the Y-profile which you found together. One partial finding is supposed to have an influence the interpretation of another piece.
There are multiple episodes of documented false statements by Stefanoni and errors of procedure.
No, there is none.
This would seem to provide justification for a detailed examination of everything else. I cannot say whether Steffanoni is dishonest or careless (I suspect the latter). I suspect that she was poorly resourced, unsupported, and had had insufficient training in the particular issues related to forensic laboratory work and lacked mentoring. In contrast to others I do not think she was a bad person. I think she was working in a bad system.
I can see a contradiction in this final assessment.
To say Stefanoni was not a bad person but only worked within a "bad system", is equivalent of saying she acted well, in good faith, and that she cannot be discredited as a witness.
Or at least, the area of discredit would be very limited, only to her
assessments in the fields where one would assume she had insufficient competence. But one could not assume she would be making up a testimony.
If she cannot be discredited as a witness, this implies that no judge could assume she is lying and the burden to prove she is not sincere is entirely on the party who claims so.
