What Nencini said about C&V
Rather than expunging the C&V report, a report to the Hellmann trial which panned Stefanoni's original, first trial evidence....
Nencini accepts it, but attempts to explain it away. Nencini accepts C&V's conclusion that there are unknown contributors to Trace B, as it was called. Nencini argues, though, that extra contributors are not relevant, nor even evidence of contamination (!).
Nencini said:
Now, the Court has no reason to doubt the observations raised by Prof. Carla Vecchiotti
concerning the technical report submitted by the Scientific Police, in the sense that the
interpretation given by the court-appointed experts Conti and Vecchiotti according to which the
presence of other contributors can be found on the trace extracted from the bra clasp is reliable,
but it does not seem capable of any significance in the context of this trial, in the sense of being
able to invalidate the results reached by the Scientific Police concerning the presence of Raffaele
Sollecito’s DNA on the hook of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher on the evening she was
killed. Indeed, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni actually never asserted that trace 165 B revealed the
presence of only two contributors, but rather that “The analysis of trace B allowed the extrapolation
of a genetic profile coming from the mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals
of which at least one male”.
So, rather than 'expunging' the C&V report,
Nencini says he has no reason to doubt Vecchiotti's observations. What he's quibbling about is whether or not C&V said that Stefanoni asserted that there were
only two contributors to Trace B. The quibble is that C&V criticised S. for not saying 'only' two contributors, Nencini said it was unclear if she'd used the word 'only'!
For Nencini, the sole evidentiary import of Trace B is that Sollecito was found as one of the contributors. It seems to escape him that if the extra ones were the result of contamination, then probably Sollecito's was too. With NO evidence regarding those extra contributors, he simply handwaves them away with galactically stupid reasoning.
Why does Nencini say that the extra ones cannot be the result of contamination? Read it and see if you agree:
Nencini italics in the original said:
Detailing the textual evidence of the [differences in] the two technical reports, as quoted above,
is not merely an irrelevant detail, but an obligation, given that to assert in an expert report that
“the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably
exfoliation cells) belonging “only to Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher” is
absolutely not equivalent to the concept expressed in the sentence “The analysis of trace B allowed
the extrapolation of a genetic profile coming from the mixture of biological substances belonging to at
least two individuals of which at least one male”.
Nencini continues by saying that extra contibutors are irrelevant, the issue is that Sollecito's is on Trace B.
Why? Because for Nencini is was 'perfectly normal' for innocent, extra contributors to be on that bra-clasp.
One cannot argue that him confusing Y-haplotypes with women, as being a typo. Read what he said.
Indeed, from the little it was possible to find out about her from the statements in the case file,
Meredith Kercher was a perfectly normal girl who had recently entered into a romantic
relationship with one of the young men who lived in the semi-underground floor of the cottage,
so it is reasonable to infer that she had a normal sexual life. This makes it reasonable to find it
plausible that the girl’s boyfriend could have also left his traces on the bra hook; it is also
reasonable to hold that some other one of her girlfriends could have at some point touched the
bra hook and left her DNA.
That's a huge typo - in the range of it being a galactically stupid reason for denying that those extra contributors to Trace B could be contamination.
Nencini seems galactically uninterested in the identity of those extra contributors. Or the fact of them.
Those who make excuses for the convicting courts simply hand wave away things like that, not relying on evidence but on assumptions and guesses.
Yet, the other thing revealed when one actually reads the Nencini report, is that he says, "
the Court has no reason to doubt the observations raised by Prof. Carla Vecchiotti concerning the technical report submitted by the Scientific Police"
He did not expunge it, he simply granted himself as the 'expert of the expert' like the eventual acquitting court said was part of the problem with this case when judges did that.
