Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

What was proven? Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court was not a merits court and therefore does not do any establishing of facts or weighing up of evidence. Its pontification - pure pie in the sky pfaffing - that Sollecito's DNA was there by a 'flawed' investigation was never a finding of fact by any court with the legal remit to find such a fact.

Again, VIxen, you demonstrate a total lack of knowledge about how the Italian courts, including the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) function - even though many posts explaining their function, and even quoting the relevant Italian procedural laws (CPP articles; in Italian and translated into English). Your concepts of Italian judicial procedure seem to be based on a PGP-biased interpretation of superficial skimming of over-simplified Wikipedia articles. You also confuse Italian "judicial facts" - which are conclusions derived alleged through logic from evidence - with "empirical facts" reliably established by, for example, reliable documentation of credible and properly performed forensic tests.

The most relevant authorities under Italian law for the CSC review of the Knox - Sollecito provisional conviction by the Nencini Court of Appeal fell under the following provisions of CPP Article 606:

Art. 606.
Casi di ricorso.

1. Il ricorso per cassazione può essere proposto per i seguenti motivi:
....
b) inosservanza o erronea applicazione della legge penale o di altre norme giuridiche, di cui si deve tener conto nell'applicazione della legge penale;

c) inosservanza delle norme processuali stabilite a pena di nullità, di inutilizzabilità, di inammissibilità o di decadenza;

d) mancata assunzione di una prova decisiva, quando la parte ne ha fatto richiesta anche nel corso dell'istruzione dibattimentale limitatamente ai casi previsti dall'articolo 495, comma 2; (1)

e) mancanza, contraddittorietà o manifesta illogicità della motivazione, quando il vizio risulta dal testo del provvedimento impugnato ovvero da altri atti del processo specificamente indicati nei motivi di gravame. ....

Google Translation:

Art. 606.
Cases of appeal.

1. An appeal for annulment may be filed for the following reasons:
....
b) failure to comply with or incorrect application of the criminal law or other legal provisions, which must be taken into account in the application of the criminal law;

c) failure to comply with the procedural rules established under penalty of nullity, exclusion of evidence, inadmissibility or forfeiture;

d) failure to obtain decisive evidence, when the party has requested it even during the trial proceedings limited to the cases provided for in Article 495, paragraph 2; (1)

e) lack, contradictory nature or manifest illogicality of the motivation, when the defect is evident from the text of the contested provision or from other procedural documents specifically indicated in the grounds for appeal. ....

Sources:

Page Expired

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation; M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa, eds.; Wolters Kluwer Italia, (C) 2014

 

[Stacyhs]

Hellmann and Conti & Vecchiotti were largely struck out by Chieffi, remember? (Except for the Calunnia conviction, confirmed!) Expunged, binned, shredded.

Chieffi did NOT strike out, expunge, bin, or shred C&V. If that were true, then M-B would not have referred to and agreed with their findings.

 

[Stacyhs]

Hellmann? Get away with you.

Massei? Nencini? Get away with you.

 

[Welshman]

Re; presence in the cottage at the time of the murder. It is indisputable that Marasca referenced Amanda's interrogation statement as evidence she was present. However, as you know, those statements were thrown out by the ISC and the ECHR, so the claim remains unsubstantiated, even if you won't admit as much.

Re; washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Congratulations, yes... according to Marasca, it was because of the mixed DNA samples IN THE SINK. However, it is also indisputable that there is no way to rule out Amanda's latent DNA was combined with Meredith's DNA contained in the diluted blood dripped in the sink. Therefore, the claim is factually unsubstantiated, even if you won't admit as much.

Where's your evidence Amanda and Meredith bled at the same time? I'll answer for you - you don't have any.
Where's your evidence Amanda's blood didn't come from one of her pierced ears? I'll answer for you again - you don't have any.

Apparently you think it's compelling to repeat a lie.. but trust me, it's not. Your problem is you're not dealing with people who read a tabloid article and thinks they understand the case. We have several people here who are very well informed of forensic investigations and what evidence exists in this case. So repeating things that are NOT proven by the evidence does nothing but reaffirm your lack of knowledge on such matters.

This is a point I have made before. If the case Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why does Vixen constantly have to resort to lying which she will be caught out by people who are aware of the facts of this case and repeat the same lies over and over again. An example is the constantly repeated lie about size 37 footprints in Meredith's room. It is repulsive hypocrisy for guilters to bang on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies when they constantly lie in their their posts and repeat the same lies.

 

[Numbers]

Chieffi did NOT strike out, expunge, bin, or shred C&V. If that were true, then M-B would not have referred to and agreed with their findings.

Yes, the Chieffi panel would have no grounds to declare the C&V report inadmissible (unusable) evidence. It was in fact largely a summary of the defects of Stefanoni's collection of evidence and the DNA profiling errors or misconduct for the knife and bra clasp. What Chieffi did do - improperly - was to state that the defense had to prove the source or mechanism of contamination. This was a violation of the Italian Constitution by Chieffi, since the presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution prove its case, not that the defense must disprove the prosecutions case.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mixed DNA: in Filomena's room and in the bathroom. Knox freshly having bled the same time as Kercher. (No, it wasn't from her pierced ear.)

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that it's possible to determine when Knox's DNA was deposited or even whose DNA was there first.
Even Stefanoni admits that when DNA is deposited or in what order cannot be determined:

"Furthermore, the same Dr. Stefanoni (pp. 221, 228) admitted that it is not possible to date the moment at which DNA is deposited, nor to determine the chronological order in which traces are left one on top of another."

(Hellmann MR pg 60)

The mixed DNA in Filomena's room is evidence of nothing. There was no blood in either the mixed sample or in the sample containing Kercher's DNA alone. Nor can it be determined when or how they were deposited.

None of the mixed samples in the bathroom are evidence of anything but living together.
Are you claiming Knox touched the cotton bud box with bloody hands? Why would she need to get a swab at that time? It's much more plausible that her DNA was already on the box as she used swabs daily to clean her ear piercings and the blood splattered onto the box later when the blade was being rinsed under the tap.

As for the bidet, mixed sample #66 was taken from the drain rim. Drain rims act as catch areas for DNA deposits so any DNA, blood, whatever can collect and stay there over time. Since Knox used the bidet, her DNA being on/in it is to be expected.

There is no evidence Knox "bled at the same time"; that is just another of your assfacts.

 

[Vixen]

Yes they can, they just cannot defend them on the basis that they're innocent.

That's correct.

 

[Vixen]

Your post demonstrates your high level of ignorance or biased interpretation of legal matters. As you have been told in previous responding posts, the Chieffi CSC panel, under Italian law, did quash the Hellmann Court of Appeal verdict. The Chieffi CSC panel could not, and did not, eliminate the valid (admissible) evidence in the case. Thus, the report of the court-appointed experts, Conti and Vecchiotti, remained in evidence, as did the elements of Stefanoni's lab reports, lab documents, testimony including but not limited to those police who collected the knife from Sollecito's kitchen, and the video recordings of scientific police activities including but not limited to the collection of the bra clasp. Also not eliminated from the record is the fact that Stefanoni did not document, and thus did not provably conduct, certain forensic activities required for reliable LCN - LT DNA profiling. Nor did she provide the defense with the full complement of results for the negative and positive controls that she ran, nor did she provide the defense with copies of the DNR raw data electronic files.

Of course, technically, it is correct that Hellman wasn't expunged but its treatment by the higher court was highly unusual, and deviated from the legal norm, so it is not incorrect to say Hellmann was 'struck out' in so far it was so egregiously viewed, it wasn't just referred back down to Hellman by the Chieffi Supreme Court, with directions to rectify the DNA matters in error, it was referred to a completely different judge AND in a completely different region. Hellman-Zanetti Court was in Perugia. Chieffi referred the matter back down to Nencini in FLORENCE. This suggests Chieffi Supreme Court smelt a rat and suspected either corruption or that Hellmann was totally incompetent in Homicide Law (he was mainly a business judge). Chieffi also had no idea why Hellmann appointed C&V.. Hellmann took 'early retirement' straight after. That is why colloquially we can accurately say his verdict - aside from the Calunnia - was 'struck out'. Nencini ruled C&V were lying about being refused Stefanoni's raw data and confirmed she had lodged it with the court all along. All C&V had to do was apply for it.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, Hellmann, just like Massei and Nencini, were "struck out", remember? Apparently not, as you consistently cite from Massei and Nencini as if they were still relevant. C&V were not, could not be "struck out", or in any other way, be discredited. Remember? Again, apparently not.

Massei and Nencini were not 'struck out'. Hellman's was in that his legal errors were sent over to Nencini in Florence to reassess, as directed by Chieffi Supreme Court. Nencini retried the issue of DNA. Ruled that it was sound and that C&V erred and were at fault. Barni performed the LCN process at Rome RSI, which C&V had refused to do, Nencini is the final word in the matter re the facts found and upheld. Marasca-Bruno did not send it back on legal matters. It simply quashed the convictions on the loophole 'insufficient evidence'. In other words, Nencini's findings of fact stand.

 

[Vixen]

Chieffi did NOT strike out, expunge, bin, or shred C&V. If that were true, then M-B would not have referred to and agreed with their findings.

Marasca-Bruno erred in bringing C&V back given Chieffi Supreme Court ruled them in legal error. M-B did not have the legal power to bring back C&V without a trial.

 

[Vixen]

Re; presence in the cottage at the time of the murder. It is indisputable that Marasca referenced Amanda's interrogation statement as evidence she was present. However, as you know, those statements were thrown out by the ISC and the ECHR, so the claim remains unsubstantiated, even if you won't admit as much.

Re; washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Congratulations, yes... according to Marasca, it was because of the mixed DNA samples IN THE SINK. However, it is also indisputable that there is no way to rule out Amanda's latent DNA was combined with Meredith's DNA contained in the diluted blood dripped in the sink. Therefore, the claim is factually unsubstantiated, even if you won't admit as much.

Where's your evidence Amanda and Meredith bled at the same time? I'll answer for you - you don't have any.
Where's your evidence Amanda's blood didn't come from one of her pierced ears? I'll answer for you again - you don't have any.

Apparently you think it's compelling to repeat a lie.. but trust me, it's not. Your problem is you're not dealing with people who read a tabloid article and thinks they understand the case. We have several people here who are very well informed of forensic investigations and what evidence exists in this case. So repeating things that are NOT proven by the evidence does nothing but reaffirm your lack of knowledge on such matters.

Stefanoni key evidence.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, the Chieffi panel would have no grounds to declare the C&V report inadmissible (unusable) evidence. It was in fact largely a summary of the defects of Stefanoni's collection of evidence and the DNA profiling errors or misconduct for the knife and bra clasp. What Chieffi did do - improperly - was to state that the defense had to prove the source or mechanism of contamination. This was a violation of the Italian Constitution by Chieffi, since the presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution prove its case, not that the defense must disprove the prosecutions case.

Of course they do. If C&V are claiming contamination re the bra clasp, of course the method of alleged contamination has to be established as a fact. C&V could not do this because it was only ever hypothetical. Criminal law is based on rules. The legal rules say you have to test a claim. The conjecture the 'bra clasp might have been contaminated' was never tested in court. As Chieffi said in rapping Hellmann, it is not legally sound procedure to announce 'anything is possible', as Hellmann flippantly did in his opening comments to the hearing. Hellmann's colleagues were absolutely aghast at Hellmann's open flouting of legal rules and convention.

 

[Numbers]

Of course they do. If C&V are claiming contamination re the bra clasp, of course the method of alleged contamination has to be established as a fact. C&V could not do this because it was only ever hypothetical. Criminal law is based on rules. The legal rules say you have to test a claim. The conjecture the 'bra clasp might have been contaminated' was never tested in court. As Chieffi said in rapping Hellmann, it is not legally sound procedure to announce 'anything is possible', as Hellmann flippantly did in his opening comments to the hearing. Hellmann's colleagues were absolutely aghast at Hellmann's open flouting of legal rules and convention.

Vixen, thanks for not disappointing readers here by not refraining from posting your usual incoherent word salad of falsehoods.

A few reminders:
Meaning of the Presumption of Innocence relevant to the contamination issue (from Wikipedia):

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt [as is the case for criminal trials in Italy]. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted [as is the case in Italy]. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

In many countries [including Italy] and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems (not to be confused with the other kind of civil law, which deals with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial [as is the case in Italy]. It is also an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 [as well as under the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6.2].

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Meaning, in part, of the Presumption of Innocence from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights:

[Convention] Article 6 § 2 requires, inter alia, that: (1) when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; (2) the burden of proof is on the prosecution; and (3) any doubt should benefit the accused....

Source: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/presumption-of-innocence
page 1

If the relevance of the above is not clear: By requiring the defense to specify where the contamination came from, the Chieffi CSC panel violated the presumption of innocence. The burden is on the prosecution to present proof that the forensic results are free from contamination as one part of their obligation to show that the forensic evidence is precise, serious, consistent, and thus reliable.

Under Italian law, CPP Article 192:

Art. 192.
Valutazione della prova.

1. Il giudice valuta la prova dando conto nella motivazione dei risultati acquisiti e dei criteri adottati.

2. L'esistenza di un fatto non può essere desunta da indizi a meno che questi siano gravi, precisi e concordanti.
....

Google Translation:

Art. 192.
Evaluation of evidence.

1. The judge evaluates the evidence by giving an account in the motivation of the results acquired and the criteria adopted.

2. The existence of a fact cannot be deduced from evidence unless that evidence is serious, precise, and consistent. ....

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/11/13/prove-disposizioni-generali

The presumption of innocence is a right established and documented in the Italian Constitution, Article 27:

Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.
Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited.

Source: https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

In the quoted excerpts above, the bold and italic emphases are mine, as well as the comments in square brackets.

 

[Stacyhs]

Marasca-Bruno erred in bringing C&V back given Chieffi Supreme Court ruled them in legal error. M-B did not have the legal power to bring back C&V without a trial.

Either present evidence of those claims or I'll consign them to the ever-growing pile of assfacts.

You've been claiming for over ten years now that M-B had no right to definitively acquit the pair and proclaiming that it would be thrown out. So, pardon me if I question your claims above and need proof.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Indeed. And not a hint of embarrassment from SpitfireIX or TruthCalls in believing the ridiculous notion that Sollecito's DNA on the murder victim's underwear was transferred by a forensic police officer from a door frame. Oh dear, indeed.

Tertiary transfer of DNA is an established fact. The SP's numerous violations of proper evidence-collection procedures are established facts. Your refusal to acknowledge those facts will not make them go away.

 

[Numbers]

Marasca-Bruno erred in bringing C&V back given Chieffi Supreme Court ruled them in legal error. M-B did not have the legal power to bring back C&V without a trial.

Vixen, I have the impression based on your post quoted above that you don't comprehend that the C & V report never went away. The Chieffi CSC panel had no grounds to declare it unusable and did not make any such declaration. Thus, the Marasca CSC panel had every legal authority to refer to the C & V report. It's important to recall, as I would hope you would be able to, despite any reading comprehension issues you may have, that the C & V report was not newly generated evidence, but an analysis of the work of the police, Scientific Police, and Stefanoni in relation to the knife and bra clasp evidence collection, DNA profiling forensic testing, and their reporting and testimony on these matters. In other words, as long as the police, Scientific Police, and Stefanoni's evidence on the knife and bra clasp were included in the trial, then the C & V report followed.

To give you some additional assistance in understanding the contamination issues, I recall your mentioning all the non-Italian forensic scientific citations in the C & V report as a problem. Perhaps your comments reflect some concerns voiced by some Italian authority or commentator. One point that nationalists who tend to reject "foreign" scientific results fail to understand is that scientific principles are not localized to artificial entities such as nations; the requirements for proper collection of forensic samples and proper laboratory procedures to avoid contamination for DNA testing apply to all places on earth. Opposing your seeming view that they are some type of American imposition on the world, here is a thorough paper on the topic from an author who is in the Department of Forensic Science and Criminology of the Dubai Police (UAE) and associated with the University of Central Lancashire (UK):

DNA Contamination in Crime Scene Investigations: Common Errors, Best Practices, And Insights from a Survey Study
Salem Khalifa Alketbi, Biomed J Sci & Tech Res 58(5)-2024. BJSTR. MS.ID.009223. pages 50970-50982.

ABSTRACT
The accurate handling of DNA evidence is essential to the success of criminal investigations and the integrity of the justice system. DNA contamination, resulting from improper crime scene procedures or laboratory practices, can severely compromise the quality of evidence, leading to wrongful convictions or acquittals. This review examines the common errors that contribute to DNA contamination in crime scene investigations and provides recommendations for best practices to mitigate these risks. Key areas of focus include errors during crime scene handling, evidence collection, packaging, transportation, and laboratory processing. The review also addresses the unique challenges posed by Touch DNA, a highly sensitive form of evidence that is particularly susceptible to contamination. Real-world case studies are presented to illustrate the legal and forensic consequences of DNA contamination, offering practical lessons for professionals in the field. In addition, the review features insights from a survey study titled “Crime Scene Personnel Perspectives on DNA Contamination: Survey Insights.” This study gathers input from newly recruited and well-trained crime scene personnel, highlighting their perspectives on the most critical errors and their impact on forensic investigations. The findings underscore the importance of continuous training, strict enforcement of forensic protocols, and the implementation of preventive measures
at all stages of the forensic process. The review concludes with a comprehensive set of best practices aimed at preventing DNA contamination, emphasizing the need for ongoing education, advanced technologies, and rigorous adherence to standardized protocols. By addressing these common challenges, forensic professionals can improve the reliability of DNA evidence and uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.

From page 50977:

Another notable example is the Amanda Knox trial, where DNA contamination played a pivotal role in both her initial conviction and eventual acquittal. The mishandling of key DNA evidence, including contamination concerns, was critical in her defense, leading to her eventual exoneration. This case underscored the risks associated with inadequate forensic protocols and the consequences of failing to maintain rigorous standards during crime scene investigations.

Source: https://biomedres.us/pdfs/BJSTR.MS.ID.009223.pdf

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote:

Marasca-Bruno erred in bringing C&V back given Chieffi Supreme Court ruled them in legal error. M-B did not have the legal power to bring back C&V without a trial.

Vixen, I have the impression based on your post quoted above that you don't comprehend that the C & V report never went away. The Chieffi CSC panel had no grounds to declare it unusable and did not make any such declaration. Thus, the Marasca CSC panel had every legal authority to refer to the C & V report. It's important to recall, as I would hope you would be able to, despite any reading comprehension issues you may have, that the C & V report was not newly generated evidence, but an analysis of the work of the police, Scientific Police, and Stefanoni in relation to the knife and bra clasp evidence collection, DNA profiling forensic testing, and their reporting and testimony on these matters. In other words, as long as the police, Scientific Police, and Stefanoni's evidence on the knife and bra clasp were included in the trial, then the C & V report followed.

Vixen has claimed what she has claimed about Chieffi's 2013 ISC panel's decision on C&V many, many times. She has been corrected each time, with the relevant quote from the Chieffi motivations report. Yet she keeps spouting it, as if Chieffi had not said what he'd said.

He made no comment, not really, about the legality of C&V. Chieffi had, as a grounds to annul Hellmann's acquital, that Hellmann had no business accepting the C&V decision on the untested, alleged DNA-sample on the knife - that Judge Hellmann had let C&V make the de facto decision about testing it - when that decision, Chieffi claimed, belonged to Hellmann and Hellmann alone. Chieffi therefore ordered the new court, which eventually was the Nencini court in Florence - to test the untested, alleged DNA found on the knife.

C&V was not annuled. Hellmann's acquital in 2011 was. C&V remained as part of the case. Chieffi did not rule that C&V were in legal error, he ruled that the Hellmann acquital was.

Which, in turn, was at issue when the final Marasca ISC panel finally and definitively acquited the pair in 2015, adding to all the reversals, by reversing Nencini's conviction from 2014. In Marasca's motivations report, he solidly criticized the courts for trying to be, "the expert of the experts", replacing their judge's sense, with the technical expertise of actual experts.

Which ALL the courts accepted C&V as being. Experts.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen has claimed what she has claimed about Chieffi's 2013 ISC panel's decision on C&V many, many times. She has been corrected each time, with the relevant quote from the Chieffi motivations report. Yet she keeps spouting it, as if Chieffi had not said what he'd said.

He made no comment, not really, about the legality of C&V. Chieffi had, as a grounds to annul Hellmann's acquital, that Hellmann had no business accepting the C&V decision on the untested, alleged DNA-sample on the knife - that Judge Hellmann had let C&V make the de facto decision about testing it - when that decision, Chieffi claimed, belonged to Hellmann and Hellmann alone. Chieffi therefore ordered the new court, which eventually was the Nencini court in Florence - to test the untested, alleged DNA found on the knife.

C&V was not annuled. Hellmann's acquital in 2011 was. C&V remained as part of the case. Chieffi did not rule that C&V were in legal error, he ruled that the Hellmann acquital was.

Which, in turn, was at issue when the final Marasca ISC panel finally and definitively acquited the pair in 2015, adding to all the reversals, by reversing Nencini's conviction from 2014. In Marasca's motivations report, he solidly criticized the courts for trying to be, "the expert of the experts", replacing their judge's sense, with the technical expertise of actual experts.

Which ALL the courts accepted C&V as being. Experts.

Yes! The only criticism of the C & V report was that they had not tested the remaining alleged DNA sample on the knife blade because, in their professional opinion, the DNA technology they had would not be adequate to test it reliably. That was one of the reasons that the Chieffi CSC panel quashed - not the C & V report, but the Hellmann Court of Appeal acquittal - because Hellmann had accepted C & V not testing that alleged sample. The Nencini Court of Appeal had that sample tested by the Carabinieri DNA forensic lab. The sample turned out to be Knox's DNA, apparently with some contamination - possibly from one of the police officers (it's not at all known) - but with no trace of Kercher's DNA. The report from the Carabinieri DNA forensic lab was thorough and professional, including results from all the controls, in marked contrast to the report from Stefanoni.

Here's an interesting summary of the lessons of the Knox - Sollecito case, updated 11 February 2025 (note that Sollecito gets left out in this part of the document):

The Amanda Knox case remains one of the most debated criminal cases in recent history. It exposed significant flaws in forensic science, highlighted the dangers of media influence in legal proceedings, and raised questions about the fairness of international justice systems.

While the Amanda Knox trial primarily unfolded within the Italian legal system, its lessons reverberate globally. It underscores the importance of robust due process, the need for comprehensive and unbiased investigations, and the perils of rushing to judgment based on preconceived notions or sensationalized narratives.

The flaws in forensic science mentioned in the article were the flaws introduced by the police and scientific police in their collection of evidence and improper laboratory anti-contamination protocols and defective LCN - LT DNA methodology.

Source: https://simplyforensic.com/unraveling-the-amanda-knox-case/

 

[TruthCalls]

Marasca-Bruno erred in bringing C&V back given Chieffi Supreme Court ruled them in legal error. M-B did not have the legal power to bring back C&V without a trial.

Wow, what complete and utter cow manure. The C&V report was entered into the case files during the Hellmann court, and it remains there to this day along with all the other evidence. Marasca didn't have to "bring C&V back", it was always there, and the report is fair and factual.

I note you still refuse to address the issues I cited WRT the collection and testing of the bra clasp. You're very predictable. When faced with an indisputable fact that you don't like, you throw out some unrelated assfact and then try to divert attention away from what you didn't want to face. But consider this.. the list represents a massive forensic failure. You can ignore it all you want, but by doing so you are conceding you can't counter it and that the list is valid and it proves the clasp should have been deemed unreliable all along.

 

[Numbers]

Here's a good basic review of why one shouldn't accept TV CSI-type myths about DNA forensics.

https://simplyforensic.com/dna-myths-busted-separating-fact-from-fiction-in-forensic-genetics/