Stacyhs, the quote you have supplied from the Marasca CSC panel MR is actually part of their summary of Sollecito's appeal arguments on page 14 of the translation.
The actual Marasca CSC panel MR statement on the problems with the DNA collection and testing is on page 26 and goes beyond the obvious contamination problems:
"....In homicides such as this (such pressure {from the media}) affects not only the timing but also the competence and the correctness of the investigative activities. Not only this, but when – as in this case – the outcome of such research depends greatly on scientific investigations, the aseptic collection of all the samples useful for the investigation – in conditions that guarantee prior sterility that avoids possible contamination – constitutes, notably, the first prudent, shrewd and essential prelude – in its turn – of a correct analysis and “reading” of the recovered samples. So when the central point of technical activity contains specialist genetic investigations, the contribution of investigative activity is ever more relevant; credible parameters of correctness must respect international standards of protocols, following fundamental rules of approach prescribed by the scientific community, on the basis of statistical and validated observations.
The rigorous respect of such methodical norms offers a conventional coefficient of acceptable credibility of such results, primarily linked to their reproducibility - namely the possibility of obtaining these results, and only these, reproduced with a constantly identical method and under identical conditions, according to fundamental empirical rules. On a more general level following the scientific method starting with Galileo Galilei on the application of the “scientific method”. This is typically leading to “objective” reality, reliable, verifiable and agreeable – well-known to be consistent, on one hand, in the collection of empirical data agreeable with the hypothesis and the theory to be validated; on the other hand in the mathematical and rigorous analysis, associating in this way – as first affirmed by the above-mentioned Galilei - "sensible experiences" to "necessary demonstrations", that constitute experimental mathematics.
4.2. As will be seen, all of this {necessary attention to proper scientific procedures required to obtain credible forensic results in accordance with international standards as stated above} is essentially missing from the present trial."
The alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito consisted of the knife the police took from Sollecito's kitchen drawer and the bra clasps attached to a scrap of bra fabric the police found on the floor 46 days after the initial search. The clasps, as shown in the police video, were touched by dirty gloves which may have been a source of DNA contamination.
While the Marasca CSC panel motivation report sections I quote above summarize the valid criticisms of that final judgment, a fuller explanation of the CSC's objections to the use of that evidence for a conviction is found in sections 7, 7.1, and 7.2 of the MR.
Here are some relevant excerpts from those sections, showing that the alleged DNA evidence claimed against Knox and Sollecito were considered to be without validity, under Italian law, as evidence to establish a fact for any verdict of conviction.
The MR quotes from previous judicial motivations of the CSC that show that under Italian jurisprudence, DNA profile testing can only be considered valid circumstantial evidence if the alleged DNA sample was collected, stored, and analyzed in accordance with international scientific protocols, with the assurance of repeatability.
"7.
The second criticism that must be raised against the ruling under appeal introduces to* the central theme of the judgment, or rather the legal value attributable to the scientific evidence, with particular reference to the genetic investigations, acquired in violation of the rules established by international protocols.
....
Hence,
a piece of scientific evidence may be held to be reliable only when it has been examined by the judge, at least with regard to the subjective reliability of the person affirming it, the scientific nature of the method employed, within a more or less acceptable margin of error, and the objective significance and reliability of the result obtained. In short, according to a critical method not dissimilar, conceptually, to that required for the assessment of ordinary evidence, with the aim of raising the level of reliability of “legal truth” as far as possible, or – if one prefers – reducing the unavoidable gap between legal truth and substantive truth to reasonable margins.
The probative reasoning which permits the passage from the evidentiary element to the evidentiary result belongs within the exclusive competence of the judge of merit, who, obviously, must provide an adequate motivation and of whom is required,
in the case of circumstantial evidence, a twofold justificatory examination: a first examination pertaining to so-called “external justification”, by means of which the judge themselves must determine the validity of the rule of experience or of the scientific or logical law or of any other rule used; and a second examination pertaining to the so-called “internal justification”, by means of which the validity of the result obtained via the application of the “bridging rule” must be concretely demonstrated (Section 1, no. 31456 of 21/05/2006. Franzioni, Rv. 240764).
7.1. With such considerations, in general and in the abstract, it is now time to consider, in the specifics, a very particular profile that is a lot more problematic.
....
{
The issue is}...about ascertaining what value in the trial the genetic investigations can have when performed in a context when the analysis and findings are not at all respectful of the regulations approved by international protocols and those which, ordinarily, must take inspiration from the scientific method.
In making implicit reference to judicial interpretation of legitimacy,
the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] didn’t hesitate to attribute evidentiary value to the aforementioned results (f. 217).
The assumption cannot be shared.....
The justifiable reasoning lies, in the opinion of this Court, in the same notion of circumstantial evidence offered by the legal code, that, in Article 192 section 2, orders that
“The existence of a fact cannot be deduced from pieces of circumstantial evidence unless they are serious, precise and consistent”, with the outcome that an element of evidence of the case, to qualify as being circumstantial evidence, must have the characteristics of seriousness, preciseness and consistency....
These characteristics are summarised in the so-called "certainty" of the circumstantial evidence, even if such a requirement is not explicitly stated in Article 192 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2nd section. In reality, it is an additional characteristic considered as unfailing in established jurisprudence and intrinsically linked to the same burden of proof of circumstantial evidence, through which, through a process of formal logic, the demonstration of the concept of proof is arrived at – an unknown fact – starting from a known fact and, therefore, established as true. It is well understood, in fact, that a similar process would be, in nuce [in short], fallacious and unreliable, when reasoning from facts that are not precise and serious and then certain.
....
Taking into account such considerations one really cannot see how the results of the genetic analysis – that were performed in violation of the recommendations for the protocols regarding the collection and storage – can be considered endowed of the characteristics of seriousness and preciseness.....
...
no importance can be given to the acquired data, not even as circumstantial evidence (cf. Section 2, n. 2476 of 27/11/2014, dep. 2015, Santangelo, Rv. 261866,
on the necessity of correct storage of the material containing genetic profiles, for the purposes of “repeatability” of technical findings capable of extrapolating the genetic profile; repeatability that is, moreover, dependent on the quantity of the trace and the quality of the DNA present on the biological exhibits collected; id. N. 2476/14 cit. Rv. 261867).
In the case in question, it is absolutely certain that those methods were not complied with (cf., among others, ff. 206-207 and the cited requested findings of the expert report Conte-Vecchiotti, ordered by the Perugian Court of Appeal).
In this regard it suffices to consider the methods of collection and storage of the two objects of major investigative interest in the current judgment: the kitchen knife (exhibit n. 36) and the bra clasp fastener of the victim (exhibit n. 165/b), for which
the sentence did not hesitate to qualify the work of the investigators in terms of lack of professionalism (f. 207).
....
7.2 In order to dispel any possible ambiguity on the matter, it will be of value then, to consider that with the impossibility of attributing appreciable and demonstrable importance during the proceedings, to the results of the genetic investigations that were not repeated and became incapable of repetition, due to the insignificant quantity or the complexity of the sample, it is not a remedy to evoke the effectiveness and usability of the technical findings if they are “unrepeatable”, when, as in the case in question, the defence guarantees were observed according to Article 360 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. .... In the case in question, despite the compliance of the procedures according to Article 360 of the legal code, the evidence admitted – not repeated and not capable of repetition in any way – cannot take on either probative or circumstantial relevance, precisely because, according to the aforementioned laws of science, they necessitated validation or falsification. In other words, in one case the empirical data, “photographed” in a timely manner, assumes demonstrable significance; while on the other it is devoid of such capability, precisely because its indicative value is inextricably linked to its repetition or repeatability.
* Leaving out "to" from the translation makes the English more idiomatic.
