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

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote

The idea that academia somehow trumps everything else is a common belief amongst the average population.

No one has claimed this. The issue is, no other DNA expert, academic or practical, supports Stefanoni's original work.

It's hard to know why that statement is hard to grasp. Strawmanning the argument is the most transparent of your evasions.

 

[Vixen]

You know, I accept your not ignorant, but damn woman... stubborn definitely seems to fit.

What Nencini did or didn't do is irrelevant. The question is for YOU to answer.

Stefanoni left 12 alleles, all above 50 RFU, off the RTIGF. The ONLY reason those alleles were left off is because they did not fit Meredith or Raffaele's profile, and that, by it's very definition, is suspect centric. Now, can YOU cite any other credible reason to leave THOSE 12 alleles off the report?

Conversely, she DID include 22 alleles that were well BELOW 50 RFU, which by definition, can not be considered reliable peaks. The only reason they are IN the RTIGF is because they match Meredith's profile, and that too is suspect centric.

Perhaps you missed the part that I quoted straight from the ENFSI Best Practices document which PROVES they did NOT follow ENFSI when they removed the knife from the collection bag NOT in the laboratory as MANDATED by ENFSI.

ENFSI Best Practice Manual
for Scene of Crime Examination
ENFSI-BPM-SOC-01

In fact, since you apparently didn't see it, I will repost a portion of section 8.2 - Preservation and Packaging


I even highlighted the relevant part for your benefit, and just in case your color blind and can't see the highlighting, I underlined it for you as well.

I am not aware of any "exceptional circumstances" that warranted the action, nor was there any "comprehensive documentation detailing the conditions under which they are opened MUST BE MADE" (capitalization by me just in case you missed the highlighting and the underlining).

So please explain how this is "...because you say so."

'Best practice' does not mean 'mandatory' simply ideally the preferred one in a situation. You'll note the use of the advisory word, 'should', which is conditional. In the real world, 'best practice' is not always possible. With the knife in RS' drawer, which was 'extra shiny' and stood out as being of the approximate right size they were looking for and suspiciously shiny clean - and bleach would have destroyed the hema rings of any blood thereon - the only wrapping available was a new calendar wrapper, in which the knife was placed. There is no way Mez' DNA can have come from that nor anywhere in RS' appartment because she had never been there. RS did write in his prison diary that she had been there and that he had pricked her hand with his knife (so as to explain it to whomever). which was a clear lie as she had never been there and nor had she ever cooked with him. As for the alleles, as I said before, a crime scene is not sterile, those would have been background noise. Who knows where they came from, perhaps Mez' bra was new out of the packet and had all kinds of sundry other DNA fragments from the factory and machinists, etc. A forensic expert for the police is looking to build a case against a suspect, in this case Sollecito, so of course, Stefanoni was looking for alleles for MK, AK, RS and RG, plus any other likely suspect. You recall, Sollecito got his cellmate Aviello to claim it was his brother and a child killer who had committed the murder. Doesn't sound like RS had a clear conscience.

 

[TruthCalls]

That is not so. The facts remain. The M-B court didn't send them back down. The Supreme Court's reasoning based on the final appeal is purely hypothetical and nothing to do with facts. For example, it claims it is 'illogical' that there could have been cleaning up in the hallway despite the bathmat footprint not having any leading up to it and confirming the pair had all night to clean up, knowing as Knox did, the other housemates would not be home that night. Simply saying the investigation was 'flawed' and chucking in a reference to Gallileo is not stating a fact, it is pure supposition. The fact there is no logic or basis for the claims shows just what a poor barrister Bongiorno is. But it shows despite having zero bar skills, she had 'influence' and backchanneling to work a political acquittal. It's not a real acquittal.

Vinci presented facts, you just don't agree with them. But where Rinaldi-Boemia used photographs to take their measurements, Vinci used the actual bathmat and a crimescope. On that basis alone, I'd say the more reliable report was written by Vinci.

But the part you keep leaving out is that determining the identity of who made the print is not possible, and is NOT a FACT. Both sides agreed there were insufficient data points from the bathmat to make a positive identification, and that all they could do is establish compatibility. And on that score there are two expert reports and they contradict each other. So it can clearly and definitively be stated in no uncertain terms that the identity of the person who left the print has NOT been established, and COULD NOT be proven. So you claiming that the print being Raffaeles is a proven fact is, to be blunt, bullcrap.

 

[Vixen]

Bolding mine. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night. In the real world, it's a real acquittal.

Only technically.

 

[AmyStrange]

I think some of those stupid guilters need to take a refresher course:

 

[Disbelief]

Only technically.

No, in reality. They are free and the only killer is on trial again for another heinous crime.

 

[Vixen]

Vinci presented facts, you just don't agree with them. But where Rinaldi-Boemia used photographs to take their measurements, Vinci used the actual bathmat and a crimescope. On that basis alone, I'd say the more reliable report was written by Vinci.

But the part you keep leaving out is that determining the identity of who made the print is not possible, and is NOT a FACT. Both sides agreed there were insufficient data points from the bathmat to make a positive identification, and that all they could do is establish compatibility. And on that score there are two expert reports and they contradict each other. So it can clearly and definitively be stated in no uncertain terms that the identity of the person who left the print has NOT been established, and COULD NOT be proven. So you claiming that the print being Raffaeles is a proven fact is, to be blunt, bullcrap.

In a criminal trial, a court is presented with arguments from all sides. Having seen and heard presentations from the Rome Scientific Police, i.e., Prof Rinaldi and Boemia, and for the defence, Prof Vinci and his agency, and all of them thoroughly cross examined by all of the parties' counsel, the panel of judges - AFTER having heard ALL of the evidence decided Rinaldi's & Boemia's was the scientific argument they preferred. That makes it a fact. A court doesn't discover truth, it weighs up the probability of truth and as such it decided Rinaldi's and Boemia's were the most probable explanation for the bathmat footprint. In fact, any layperson looking at the print compared to RS' foot can see it's his footprint with their own eyes. Vinci did his best to present an alternative explanation but nobody bought it.

 

[Vixen]

No, in reality. They are free and the only killer is on trial again for another heinous crime.

Yes, just like OJ Simpson was free in reality.

 

[TruthCalls]

'Best practice' does not mean 'mandatory' simply ideally the preferred one in a situation. You'll note the use of the advisory word, 'should', which is conditional. In the real world, 'best practice' is not always possible.

More nonsense. What do you think ENFSI is? It's ALL a series of documents specifying best practices, which everyone should follow. And yes, in the passage cited, one can violate the BPM guidelines, but only when there are "exceptional circumstances". Wanting to fit the knife in a calendar box is not an "exceptional circumstance".

With the knife in RS' drawer, which was 'extra shiny' and stood out as being of the approximate right size they were looking for and suspiciously shiny clean - and bleach would have destroyed the hema rings of any blood thereon - the only wrapping available was a new calendar wrapper, in which the knife was placed.

I have to be honest, Vixen.. this is what annoys the crap out of me about you. You know damn well you do NOT remove a possible murder weapon from a sterile collection bag and risk contamination because you want it to fit in a cardboard box. Just leave the freakin knife in it's collection bag, AS SPECIFIED by ENFSI, and allow the lab tech to remove it. They are the ONLY ONES qualified to do that. But you'd rather spew lengthy paragraphs of nonsense than just admit it was a massive violation of ENFSI standards.

And note, you claimed they do follow ENFSI, and then when I prove to you they didn't, you try this ridiculous argument of what 'should' means.

There is no way Mez' DNA can have come from that nor anywhere in RS' appartment because she had never been there.

It's not up to YOU to determine whether contamination can happen. Do you think it's acceptable behavior for a forensic CSI team to violate procedures and protocols designed to minimize the risk of contamination and later claim "there's no way it got contaminated"? Contamination, especially when we're talking about BELOW LCN levels, can happen at any time. This is why there are entire manuals dedicated to the profession of avoiding contamination. Apparently you think this effort is a complete waste of time because contamination never happens.

RS did write in his prison diary that she had been there and that he had pricked her hand with his knife (so as to explain it to whomever). which was a clear lie as she had never been there and nor had she ever cooked with him. As for the alleles, as I said before, a crime scene is not sterile, those would have been background noise. Who knows where they came from, perhaps Mez' bra was new out of the packet and had all kinds of sundry other DNA fragments from the factory and machinists, etc.

Let's try again...

There were a total of 72 peaks on the bra clasp OVER 50 RFU. 60 of those 72 belonged to Meredith, Raffaele, or both, and the other 12 did not. Now, WHY do you think those particular 12 were not in the RTIGF??? It WASN'T because they were below 50 RFU. It WASN'T because they were in stutter position. No, the ONLY REASON they were left off is because they did NOT belong to Meredith or Raffaele, and THAT, by it's very definition, is suspect centric.

What you SHOULD (there's that word again) do is report ALL alleles found and allow the court and the experts to debate what they all mean. You wrote "who knows where they came from"... but WHO decided these 12 alleles should be considered of questionable origin and should therefore not be in the RTIGF, and what was the justification for THESE PARTICULAR 12 alleles if not because they weren't in Meredith or Raffaele's profile?

As for the knife, if you quantify a sample and get multiple "Too Low" readings, meaning no DNA is present or there is insufficient DNA to get a reliable profile, you should file the sample away as negative, just like she did with sample 36C. Stefanoni didn't do this. And if you do amplify it, and you're not getting anything, you don't continue to amplify it beyond manufacture limits, just to get something. And when you finally start seeing something, you still stick to the rules of forensic DNA, such as adhering to the 50 RFU threshold. 22 of the alleles were WELL below the 50 RFU threshold. If she wasn't suspect centric she would have discarded anything under 50, especially when almost the entire profile was below this limit, but she was specifically looking for Meredith's profile, so she ignored the threshold, literally reporting on a peak of 11 !!!!

You DO NOT pick and choose what rules you'll adhere to and which you'll ignore, based on whether it's evidence that supports your position or not. This is what ANY competent forensic investigator would tell you, and I truly believe you know this, but you're so heavily invested in Amanda's guilt that you'd deny the sun is hot if it meant she was innocent.

A forensic expert for the police is looking to build a case against a suspect, in this case Sollecito, so of course, Stefanoni was looking for alleles for MK, AK, RS and RG, plus any other likely suspect. You recall, Sollecito got his cellmate Aviello to claim it was his brother and a child killer who had committed the murder. Doesn't sound like RS had a clear conscience.

Finally, you admit it, though I'm sure you didn't mean to. No, a forensic expert for the police is looking for evidence that will identify a suspect, you don't determine who your suspect is and then look for evidence to be used agains them. But hey, maybe this is your problem, you just don't understand how a proper investigation should be handled.

 

[TruthCalls]

In a criminal trial, a court is presented with arguments from all sides. Having seen and heard presentations from the Rome Scientific Police, i.e., Prof Rinaldi and Boemia, and for the defence, Prof Vinci and his agency, and all of them thoroughly cross examined by all of the parties' counsel, the panel of judges - AFTER having heard ALL of the evidence decided Rinaldi's & Boemia's was the scientific argument they preferred. That makes it a fact. A court doesn't discover truth, it weighs up the probability of truth and as such it decided Rinaldi's and Boemia's were the most probable explanation for the bathmat footprint. In fact, any layperson looking at the print compared to RS' foot can see it's his footprint with their own eyes. Vinci did his best to present an alternative explanation but nobody bought it.

First of all, Hellmann and Marasca did not prefer the prosecution's argument. Hellmann agreed with Vinci, and Marasca reiterated the position taken by ALL of the experts, that the print could only be used to exclude, not identify the person who made it.

And as has been stated hundreds of times before, both Massei and Nencini were overturned, so their 'rulings' are as relevant as Hellmann, who was also overturned. None of them matter.

Nope, sorry... I looked at the prints and I see NO similarity to Raffaele's reference print. Virtually everyone else on this board sees it that way as well. You are in a very small minority.

But hey, if a court's opinion equals "fact", then it's a fact Amanda and Raffaele did not commit the crime. Oh, wait... I remember - ONLY if the court's opinion equals YOUR opinion.. THEN it's a fact. Otherwise, <insert excuse here>

 

[LondonJohn]

Vinci presented facts, you just don't agree with them. But where Rinaldi-Boemia used photographs to take their measurements, Vinci used the actual bathmat and a crimescope. On that basis alone, I'd say the more reliable report was written by Vinci.

But the part you keep leaving out is that determining the identity of who made the print is not possible, and is NOT a FACT. Both sides agreed there were insufficient data points from the bathmat to make a positive identification, and that all they could do is establish compatibility. And on that score there are two expert reports and they contradict each other. So it can clearly and definitively be stated in no uncertain terms that the identity of the person who left the print has NOT been established, and COULD NOT be proven. So you claiming that the print being Raffaeles is a proven fact is, to be blunt, bullcrap.

Yes. Not to mention the fact (which I've banged on about several times previously here....) that the blood/water partial print on the bathmat was a) made with a liquid-saturated foot, b) made on a mat with thick and variable-height tufting and considerable ability to both absorb and wick liquids* (processes which would inevitably have altered the shape and size of the observable print, and c) made with the full weight of the person on that foot at the time the print was deposited. Whereas the reference prints were made using specialist printing ink (non-saturated) on a hard flat paper surface with effectively no pile and no wicking ability, and with equal foot pressure from both feet as the print was made (ie they were not asked to stand on one foot to make the print).

Therefore, from the very outset, it was essentially impossible to make any kind of reliable identification between two similar-sized feet, especially since the print was only partial - meaning the foot length could not be measured and compared. The "analysis" carried out by Rinaldi and Boemia was laughably dreadful; they had zero experience or skills in conducting footprint analysis, and in effect tried to wing it by using fingerprint matching techniques that were wholly inappropriate and unreliable when dealing with this sort of footprint. They deserved to be laughed out of court (metaphorically speaking) by the Marasca SC panel, and Marasca was entirely correct to drive a coach and horses through the lower convicting courts which had decided the partial print was provably that of Sollecito.

Incidentally, Vixen has now had it explained to her an embarrassing number of times how that diluted-blood print came to be deposited onto the bathmat, and how/why there were no other bloody footprints leading from Kercher's bedroom to the bathroom. But once more (concentrate, Vixen):

1) Guede got a significant amount of Kercher's blood on his trousers while he was killing and sexually assaulting her (Guede himself admitted to having this blood on his trousers)

2) As Kercher lay dead or dying, Guede realised he'd have to try to remove or disguise this blood on his trousers (again, Guede himself admitted to this)

3) Guede therefore walked out of Kercher's room and into the bathroom, in order to try to wash the blood from his trousers (Guede himself admitted to this)

Now come the important parts for the slow learners at the back of the class (which includes, astonishingly, more than one Italian judge...):

4) Guede had not yet stepped in Kercher's blood at this point. Therefore there was no blood on his trainers. There was also no blood on his bare feet, for obvious reasons, Therefore Guede left no bloody shoe/foot prints on the floor during his journey from Kercher's bedroom to the bathroom.

5) Once in the bathroom, Guede removed his trainers (and his socks if he was wearing any), then - barefooted now - he stepped into the shower cubicle and directed the shower water to the blood on his trousers to try to wash off some or all of the blood.

6) He succeeded - at least in part: some of the blood did indeed get washed off his trousers. This now-diluted blood travelled down to the floor of the shower, and GUEDE STEPPED ONTO THIS DILUTED BLOOD AT THIS POINT.

7) GUEDE THEN PLACED THIS SAME FOOT - WHICH, REMEMBER, WAS NOW SATURATED IN THE DILUTED BLOOD - ONTO THE BATHMAT, THEREBY DEPOSITING THE PARTIAL PRINT.

8) HE THEN REPLACED HIS TRAINERS (AND SOCKS IF WEARING) AND WALKED BACK TO KERCHER'S ROOM. REMEMBER, THERE WAS STILL NO BLOOD ON HIS TRAINERS, MEANING THAT HE LEFT NO TRAIL OF BLOODY PRINTS BETWEEN THE BATHROOM AND KERCHER'S BEDROOM.

9) AT SOME POINT AFTER THIS POINT, Guede stepped one of his trainers into Kercher's blood - possibly when he had to step further into her bedroom in order to reach her handbag (purse), looking for cash, phones and keys to exit the cottage. This is precisely how and why Guede left a gradually-diminishing set of bloody one-trainer shoeprints leading from Kercher's room up towards the front door of the cottage.


* All towels and mats (of the drying variety) are of course designed to absorb and wick liquids - this is the primary way in which they dry the body/foot in question.

 

[Vixen]

More nonsense. What do you think ENFSI is? It's ALL a series of documents specifying best practices, which everyone should follow. And yes, in the passage cited, one can violate the BPM guidelines, but only when there are "exceptional circumstances". Wanting to fit the knife in a calendar box is not an "exceptional circumstance".


I have to be honest, Vixen.. this is what annoys the crap out of me about you. You know damn well you do NOT remove a possible murder weapon from a sterile collection bag and risk contamination because you want it to fit in a cardboard box. Just leave the freakin knife in it's collection bag, AS SPECIFIED by ENFSI, and allow the lab tech to remove it. They are the ONLY ONES qualified to do that. But you'd rather spew lengthy paragraphs of nonsense than just admit it was a massive violation of ENFSI standards.

And note, you claimed they do follow ENFSI, and then when I prove to you they didn't, you try this ridiculous argument of what 'should' means.

It's not up to YOU to determine whether contamination can happen. Do you think it's acceptable behavior for a forensic CSI team to violate procedures and protocols designed to minimize the risk of contamination and later claim "there's no way it got contaminated"? Contamination, especially when we're talking about BELOW LCN levels, can happen at any time. This is why there are entire manuals dedicated to the profession of avoiding contamination. Apparently you think this effort is a complete waste of time because contamination never happens.

Let's try again...

There were a total of 72 peaks on the bra clasp OVER 50 RFU. 60 of those 72 belonged to Meredith, Raffaele, or both, and the other 12 did not. Now, WHY do you think those particular 12 were not in the RTIGF??? It WASN'T because they were below 50 RFU. It WASN'T because they were in stutter position. No, the ONLY REASON they were left off is because they did NOT belong to Meredith or Raffaele, and THAT, by it's very definition, is suspect centric.

What you SHOULD (there's that word again) do is report ALL alleles found and allow the court and the experts to debate what they all mean. You wrote "who knows where they came from"... but WHO decided these 12 alleles should be considered of questionable origin and should therefore not be in the RTIGF, and what was the justification for THESE PARTICULAR 12 alleles if not because they weren't in Meredith or Raffaele's profile?

As for the knife, if you quantify a sample and get multiple "Too Low" readings, meaning no DNA is present or there is insufficient DNA to get a reliable profile, you should file the sample away as negative, just like she did with sample 36C. Stefanoni didn't do this. And if you do amplify it, and you're not getting anything, you don't continue to amplify it beyond manufacture limits, just to get something. And when you finally start seeing something, you still stick to the rules of forensic DNA, such as adhering to the 50 RFU threshold. 22 of the alleles were WELL below the 50 RFU threshold. If she wasn't suspect centric she would have discarded anything under 50, especially when almost the entire profile was below this limit, but she was specifically looking for Meredith's profile, so she ignored the threshold, literally reporting on a peak of 11 !!!!

You DO NOT pick and choose what rules you'll adhere to and which you'll ignore, based on whether it's evidence that supports your position or not. This is what ANY competent forensic investigator would tell you, and I truly believe you know this, but you're so heavily invested in Amanda's guilt that you'd deny the sun is hot if it meant she was innocent.

Finally, you admit it, though I'm sure you didn't mean to. No, a forensic expert for the police is looking for evidence that will identify a suspect, you don't determine who your suspect is and then look for evidence to be used agains them. But hey, maybe this is your problem, you just don't understand how a proper investigation should be handled.

WAIT! Article 360 IIRC of the Italian CPP states that all parties must be notified when there is a forensic sample that is too small to be duplicated, as in an LCN. The defense is required to send their own expert witness along. Knox didn't bother, so has no legal come back for ignoring the edict. Sollecito, true to form, sent the most expensive and top of the field genetic experts, one was Torre and the other Patuma [_sp?]. As the printout of the PCR is done by computer, there is no way Stefanoni could have fiddled the result in front of those experts, who reported back no objections re cleanliness standards, contamination, method or result. Fact is, the knife striation yielded a near full profile (15-loci) of Mez, when she had never been near RS' apartment. Likewise, the finding of a full profile of Sollecito on the bra clasp, which had been viciously torn or cut off Mez' torso. You can rationalise that 'there must have been contamination from somewhere' but it's all cloud cuckooland OJ-Simpson-style 'get out clause' what-iffing. In the real world the Rome Forensic Scientific Police identified DNA that proved that RS together with ALL of the other evidence was factually at the scene of the crime.

 

[Vixen]

First of all, Hellmann and Marasca did not prefer the prosecution's argument. Hellmann agreed with Vinci, and Marasca reiterated the position taken by ALL of the experts, that the print could only be used to exclude, not identify the person who made it.

And as has been stated hundreds of times before, both Massei and Nencini were overturned, so their 'rulings' are as relevant as Hellmann, who was also overturned. None of them matter.

Nope, sorry... I looked at the prints and I see NO similarity to Raffaele's reference print. Virtually everyone else on this board sees it that way as well. You are in a very small minority.

But hey, if a court's opinion equals "fact", then it's a fact Amanda and Raffaele did not commit the crime. Oh, wait... I remember - ONLY if the court's opinion equals YOUR opinion.. THEN it's a fact. Otherwise, <insert excuse here>

Marasca and Nencini's decisions/verdicts were annulled. The findings of fact remain. Facts cannot be annulled, only a decision, sentence, conviction or a verdict can. A fact ipso facto remains a fact.

 

[LondonJohn]

Marasca and Nencini's decisions/verdicts were annulled. The findings of fact remain. Facts cannot be annulled, only a decision, sentence, conviction or a verdict can. A fact ipso facto remains a fact.

LOL. Even by the standards of many of Vixen's ignorant posts, this post is *chef's kiss* of sheer ignorance, misunderstanding and plain old wrong.

 

[Vixen]

LOL. Even by the standards of many of Vixen's ignorant posts, this post is *chef's kiss* of sheer ignorance, misunderstanding and plain old wrong.

I should not trouble you with matters of complexity.

 

[LondonJohn]

I should not trouble you with matters of complexity.

Well, since your posts invariably get the simple, basic tenets of criminal justice so embarrassingly wrong, I'd be almost amused to have you "trouble me" with those "matters of complexity". So, just for a laugh, why don't you have a crack at it?

 

[Disbelief]

Yes, just like OJ Simpson was free in reality.

Congratulations for choosing a case that's not even similar. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ epic.

 

[Numbers]

That is not so. The facts remain. The M-B court didn't send them back down. The Supreme Court's reasoning based on the final appeal is purely hypothetical and nothing to do with facts. For example, it claims it is 'illogical' that there could have been cleaning up in the hallway despite the bathmat footprint not having any leading up to it and confirming the pair had all night to clean up, knowing as Knox did, the other housemates would not be home that night. Simply saying the investigation was 'flawed' and chucking in a reference to Gallileo is not stating a fact, it is pure supposition. The fact there is no logic or basis for the claims shows just what a poor barrister Bongiorno is. But it shows despite having zero bar skills, she had 'influence' and backchanneling to work a political acquittal. It's not a real acquittal.

Vixen, you are so absolutely wrong in your post. When a first-instance or Court of Appeal judgment is quashed, that is, annulled in full by a higher court, the "facts" of the quashed judgment disappear; they no longer have validity under Italian law. What does remain valid, unless specifically ruled unusable (inadmissible) by the higher court, is the evidence.

There were no signs of a clean-up in the hallway or in the murder room. Clean-ups leave evidence such as swirls.

It's impossible to distinguish one person's DNA from another's DNA except with highly technical DNA laboratory testing, so there was no clean-up leaving Guede's DNA but eliminating Knox's and Sollecito's DNA.

The acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher by the Marasca CSC panel was indeed a real and definitive final acquittal which can never, ever be reversed under Italian or international law.

Your comments about "influence", "back-channeling", and "political" factors resulting in a "political acquittal" are nonsense that reflects your biased views and ignorance of forensic and legal principles, and are not supported by a fair reading of the Marasca CSC panel MR.

 

[Stacyhs]

The Independent newspaper from 2010 quotes Darkness Descending, a guilter staple, citing that Garofano had no faith in the original prosecution's work.

Your post documents something a bit different, that Garafano, although embedded the Carabinieri, did not have what could be called a full measure of training, leading trained DNA experts to dispute his findings on certain things - all in favour of the original defence. (Unless I am reading your post wrong.)

Either way, I had asked Vixen for a DNA expert who'd supported Stefanoni's original DNA work. Vixen gave Garofano's name. My bias is that she offered Garafano's name simply because it had shown up in Harry Rag's, guilter screed.....

So, I am no further in having my original question answered. Does that surprise anyone?

No, I'm not saying he didn't have a 'full measure of training'. I'm saying I'm surprised that the head of the Carabinieri forensics dept. would not have a higher degree than just a B.S. in biology which is the same as Stefanoni. I think it would be the usual for the head of a police scientific dept. to have more training than a basic B.S.

 

[Stacyhs]

Garafano wrote his report for the authors of Darkness Descending. He was free to provide whatever opinion he wanted. It is all in the public domain and nothing to do with Harry Rag.

No one has said he wasn't free to provide is opinion. But Garofano is absolutely a darling of the TJMK crowd and repeatedly cited in support of Stefanoni's work. That's because there are so few DNA experts who do. You've cited him many times.