ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - With President, I ask the Court's attention on a question of a procedural nature on which we focused in the latter period and that we still synthesized in a written statement that therefore the Court will then be deposited so that any references specific acts to which I refer of course will find timely reflected in the memory. I really try to be concise, among other things, I think it's a feature,
I ask here is really only 10 minutes of time, however, really is a matter which we submit to the Court and the Court of all the attention really. The facts that we believe will submit to integrate an injury to the right of defense of the effects are those that should lead this Court to declare the nullity of the request for trial, the invalidity of the decree ordering the trial and usability evidence of a series of steps including the deposition of Stefanoni, Stefanoni the report of which was written by Dr. Stefanoni, of course, these are the conclusions. The point ... one of the central points of this process I did not escape anyone is of course the scientific evidence that DNA testing is based on a series of scientific analysis, all that concerns the scientific analysis was done following a certain procedure, the procedure which led the offices of the Scientific Police to achieve a certain result of evidence, a procedure obviously is not abstract, is a procedure that it has led to the analysis and the results are summarized in course documents, acts, these acts and procedures, these procedures are of fundamental importance for the defense as the involvement of Raffaele Sollecito, I did not escape anyone builds on this DNA evidence and then if there are any documents that explain how you got to give a DNA Raffaele Sollecito are basically the acts that led to prison, Raffaele Sollecito, are not acts of so little importance. We also say that these acts are of a relief so decisive that I truly believe that the attention is likely to be heard should have been totally different and we will see why there was a suspension, I also say that I already know the kind of opposition that is usually made when We make exceptions with regard to non-submission of documents laboratory we
it is said, "but all in all in the laboratory could also be your technical advisor was appointed Professor Power which has so important that, there's this argument once and for all has my reply, the presence of a consultant to the Defense is one thing the need of Defense to make available everything that has led to the conclusions of the Scientific Police who have since been elevated charge is another matter, so do not confuse the presence of acts necessary to the filing. Let's say that one thing that I think it is clear that in addition to professional judges give it for granted but also to non-stipendiary judges is that DNA testing is a test that is not a simple equation, but requires reading, interpretation of some data tant 'it is true that you have seen how those graphs, those peaks by the consultant of the Public Ministry have been ... by Dr. Stefanoni were read in a way, the total height does this mean for me, are read by defense counsel in another way, this means what? If I have to interpret the peaks of the graphs I need to know first of all:
1) such peaks, such as charts, 2) how those peaks have been made these graphics. This whole premise was used to clarify a number of facts of which we learned definitively only at the last hearing, but that date back to the preliminary investigation is also why the request for revocation of the request for trial, following the conclusion of the preliminary investigation is an act which is called a 415 and is the act by which it is said of Defense, "Defense, I decided to bring to trial Raffaele Sollecito because I have the following tests" lists the tests and gives the material to the defense, is the first time that the defense can defend itself, it sometimes happens that by having this material the defense back off the PM and says, "eye, look at that material is a bit 'do that survey is incomplete - or - eye that you're wrong "that is why it is important that when
close the investigation is to give everything because defense only if the defense has a complete picture can report errors, if the defense does not have a complete picture is injured in the first right which is to defend, report errors. What has happened? Following the conclusion of preliminary investigations we have been filed technical report of surveys of genetic forensic signature of Dr. Stefanoni and this is the essential point in this report that should have been a sort of complete documentation of all the elements that had Dr. Stefanoni led to certain conclusions in this report actually seeing it you are not given the scientific evidence, procedures, data that led to certain conclusions Dr. Stefanoni only because they are attached to this report only the number that identifies alleles for alleles are the peaks so this report should have said: "I have done this analysis in this way, I got the peaks in this way I'll show peaks that I got, I'll show you the numbers that I had to available "is actually a report that eventually you will see it only and exclusively the number of alleles. What were you expecting to have instead? It was expected to have a detailed description of how he arrived at those numbers, as it had arrived in those alleles but this is denied, it is clear that when we took this technical report and we have given to Our consultants, our consultants have told us: "As if this was some sort of technical advisory label where it says <<has been achieved this>>" stop, but if the Doctor does not expose Stefanoni precisely as it was the result achieved and what are the supporting documents we can not interpret this label, it is impossible to interpret, since at this point we started on the basis of these stress
consultants to report a problem, report the injury of the right of defense by telling the prosecutor and the proceedings will be attached to our memory, "Prosecutor will probably point out that an error in this report completely lacks the elements that serve the defense that is missing diagrams and electropherograms ", ie the famous graphic that you have seen and on which we are examining the consultants did not exist during the investigation and we have asked them, Annex 2 of this request will find our memory, of course, also explain why these graphs were used among other things you have seen what they are because if you do not understand the plot because it is not attributed to a person's DNA rather than to another. Despite this request and then signed a request to the Defense "please give us the diagrams" we are told that ... We are still under investigation by a 4 5 I would say that our faculty and this is the first defect defense is exercisable only on what has been filed and that we can not claim not filed any case because the prosecutor has filed those documents and we we need to work on those, so we note that those acts have a gap we are told that the option provided for in Article 415 bis of the documents filed and concern only those, of course we thought this unjust response and we made on July 3, 2008 a new request, asking at this point ... at least a sort of supplementary investigation, to acquire at the laboratories of the Scientific Police and the numerical values RFU peaks at all the exhibits, or alternatively obtained from the CD rom containing the Scientific Police raw data and peak RFU, it is obvious that they are difficult for all to follow what is required, what I'm saying is that we realized we were there from the beginning all the support that was missing were the conclusions, this is Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was missing documents that allow us
allocation and so begins this run and you will find these two instances documented in the file. The second instance we are told once again we are in the process of 15 ... of
415 a 'no we can not give you these papers we continue to ask why you do what you should - quote - on the graphs of the Scientific Police, there are already generic value of these bars will be enough "then the second instance in which even the Defense says: "you are wrong - she simply says
- Excuse me explain why? " and we are told: "You must be sufficient to
I tell you that you do not have Raffaele Sollecito to be interested because I say I'm Raffaele Sollecito, "and so we reach the preliminary hearing, preliminary hearing this obviously attaches it as a record September 16, 2008 defense that was seen already injured phase 415 bis and then saw a request for trial on
the basis of acts ever filed September 16, 2008 Defense reiterated, repeated, insists that the missing documents, reiterates its request to acquire numerical values RFU and spikes on all the findings or, alternatively, to acquire CD-ROM containing the raw data of the RFU peaks and then you see what the defense is finding a third judge saw that the prosecutor had indeed filed the documents to the judge repeated this type of request and here is the first confirmation that what I am exposing is not perhaps entirely unfounded because the answers that we were right GUP, the GUP in fact says that for the purposes of deciding, do not say this to the judges who are judges, the judge takes the preliminary hearing of witnesses when making decisions or when there is a well motivated ' Ordinance, which states that for the decision and fully understand what procedure was adopted for the analysis it is necessary that there is a depositing of these acts and then the necessary support to the conclusions that were reached, so when we said: "Look, you tell us
only mean that these data are of Raphael, but does not support this document with "the Judge actually acknowledge that something is missing. On September 25 is deposited at the hearing on behalf of Dr. Zugarini Stefanoni the CD rom containing the data that we requested. Noting that they had arrived at last we give some data to our consultants and our consultants tell us that once again they are not the complete data, but serves the file service, file service, said log files. Because we needed this service file? Because this file service whose importance I of course then I later learned was essential precisely because it contained a wealth of information that once again were not filed, here's a fact that I am a bit 'in that context, of course, the GUP when he had to take such a decision under the Ordinance says, "but all in all I've asked the Stefanoni who told me that after all this file service is not as important to you." Now I really is because they are for training and respectful of all and because Dr. Stefanoni seemed to me so I do not really relevant is that context that Dr. Stefanoni have said something wrong to the GUP that context, the same procedure in the sense that if a GUP should decide whether what he has filed the Stefanoni is complete in my opinion should not ask to ask why Stefanoni Stefanoni: "excuse is totally complete what you have deposited or wrong?" I think it is just not entirely consistent with the aims of the decision that he must ask why a thing is to ask the person concerned "well done" maybe it was one thing to ask a third party that is "sorry third party defense continues to file day in and day out instances in which he says that Dr. Stefanoni has done this work but lack of work ... but
lack of documents, the prosecutor does not file other acts "in my opinion, the judge would have had to call a third, a third appraiser and say," but he is right, however, the prosecution or the defense and Dr. Stefanoni "and instead appears in the Ordinance attach this to the judge hearing the Stefanoni says: "all things considered, since the Stefanoni says that this file is not should we move forward." These are relevant data service file if not indispensable because they indicate the height of the peak height of each peak is a parameter that must be supported and evaluated along with other parameters such as the area. During the hearing of Dr. Stefanoni you back to speak again of course because of the missing material was not the defense challenged the accuracy of the results but we've always contested that we lacked procedures. Just part of the review comes out that actually the defense once again had reason for missing data and then the judge at this point stops and says ... Dr. Stefanoni October 8 you will find the Ordinance "data for the calculation of areas related to the finding must be received," those that are indicated by Professor Pascal, who was our consultant and that the defense has repeatedly asked for, so far what we've had two instances preliminary investigations in which begged to have the data for the science lab, two other instances in the preliminary hearing, which are then finally ... which eventually gives this positive response, it will say: "all right 'you have done all these instances but now what you want, although a bit' late, then in the end will have a trickle but in the end a little 'acts they've had "the answer is no, the answer is no not only because it seems to me personally, however, unacceptable to have material evidence that supports Queen of the process I must do three hundred instances but other than that on 18 July
2009 before this court during the cross examination of defense expert Professor Raffaele Sollecito Tagliabracci at some point we have been a question with which I have obviously realized that I missed other acts, it is clear that I was particularly sensitive to this because I knew I ask for a year and a half acts, and when I heard a question that you referred to a quantity of DNA that is a fact that I try for a year and a half I guess, given the previous ones and repeat it because you did not know the earlier, the background is that we file documents instances in which we asked, I realized that there were other acts. At this point, in fact it turned out that there are other acts, so it existed in pre-trial investigation, it existed in the preliminary hearing, it existed here when we did the trial other acts, I also believe we have reported to the Court in light of the fact perhaps to defend themselves need to see numbers, data and peaks, the importance at this point ... an ordinance was issued by the Court which asked to file these papers, this is history took place under your attention so it's useless to tell you what the Court did. The conclusion is that events at the end of the preliminary investigations in the light of what has happened all this takes decisive value, have not been filed and no one can say that now because they were deposited is on record that the documents were not filed Laboratory from which one can infer the amount of biological material found on the victim's bra hook and have not been deposited and this is the importance of my exceptions, the laborato_y documents that reconstruct the steps that followed the Doctor to Stefanoni arrive at certain conclusions. Then this is the excursion, all you had to say that I have told you, we pass to the conclusions of law, I believe that
a factual standpoint, if the attachments and instances correspond to what I said and match is a matter of fact, therefore, that there was this rush of Defense and the failure of the storage card. What are the consequences? The first consequence is that frustrated sense of 415 bis, 415 bis of the purpose of defense is to know that the cards and exercises the right of defense and is also of crucial decisions, when a 415 is known as the Court may make choices such as an interrogation to ask or not ask, to request a recording evidence, to request an additional investigation, I can make this choice if you know how that material has been attributed to Raffaele Sollecito do not know if I can only ask I can not do is deposited procedural choices. The thing is that material that was missing from the beginning as I said not only was there at the time of a 415 but there was not even act that could have been a rescue and that the next transmission before the preliminary hearing , the point I remember, but I realize that it is probably unnecessary for this problem is also pronounced with the Judgement of the Constitutional Court rejected the interpretation of the '91 145 he claimed that there is no power of choice of the Public Ministry in order to acts to be included in the dossier that is, if the prosecutor has a million cards including of course those of the laboratory, including also the most useless cards that believes the prosecution must deposit them all, the Constitutional Court has recognized a real obligation on all 'Prosecution of transmitting the entire documentation gathered during the investigation only in this way being able to overcome the censorship of the constitutionality of legislation with regard to Article 24 of course right of defense paragraph 2 101 and 102, with the same Judgement and Judgement ask precisely this that refer to the assessments that will be taken by
Court, the Constitutional Court has pointed out the two requirements which fulfills this obligation of deposit, any act relating to the investigations carried out at the preliminary hearing can be removed from the full knowledge of the parties, does not say Defender of the Constitutional Court says: " no undue limitation - the Court says - it can even be placed on the knowledge of the GUP for the determinations are entitled to it. " What does "determinations are entitled to it"? On the one hand those that belong to the Defender I've said, but then there are those that belong to the GUP because when I ask you if you request the nullity of the indictment I ask you to say that I have not exercised during my preliminary investigations strategic choices that I had to exercise, I could not ask for a recording evidence, I could not ask for an interview because I did not know what I was moving, then even though the GUP could ... maybe so you know, was heard on that occasion Dr. Stefanoni there also was heard in the dark because the documents were missing, so the GUP when he took his decision he has taken in the absence of a number of crucial documents and I'm sorry but that are critical not because he says it is out of the defense but because there is an ordinance that you have taken your last hearing, if the last hearing was a decision taken by this court in which he says: "an eye missing Documents, "which means that those documents) were not there when the defense would have to decide what to do, ask for an interview or not b) when the GUP would have to decide what to do and if the Judge had decided the case had those documents not to return for trial Raffaele Sollecito, if he decided to order an expert, if he decided to change my mind as we know it? We do not know. Legally what can be done before such a thing to ignore my request to us to bring my exception
Always forward and I do not have all this interest, I have interest i_ having the cards with absolutely no gaps, no procedural errors because they do not want to start this process further then we are attentive to the legal conclusions of something that is on record that is a failure to deposit You know perfectly well that there is still significant guidance of the Supreme Court speaks of nullity whenever there is a significant injury to the right of defense for which it is believed that these documents are missing that you were willing to acquire Defense crucial for the conclusion is necessarily the invalidity of the request for indictment of the decree ordering that the proceedings there and then that famous orientation that tends to the preservation of the pleadings that enhances the use of more ... the usability in terms of course probative evidence of why you should also get not only the invalidity of the request for trial but you could say: "We still think it at least a few acts that can be used?" this answer is "not even this can be considered" why? Because when the examination of Dr. Stefanoni was done without any documents is obvious that the defense could not ask a few questions, for example, I could not ask the Doctor Stefanoni: "I'm sorry this document is to act I can say of his procedure on the basis of what you trained him, because there is this peak, because there is this diagram? " all these things are known and so long after that kind of usability, however, the testimony of Dr. Stefanoni is broken and what is the genetic relationship to the act and one that I reported, so there's definitely a void next to the problem usability of records and the conclusion of this is necessarily a process of regression to that earlier stage in which it occurred
vice, so conclusively in a few seconds of my conclusions, if there was a lesion of the right to defend the conclusion must be that of the void, you find only the moment in which this lesion has been determined, if we ignored the gap we could go today forward in this process, we might have of Judgments in one way or another, we have them in second grade, but this habit because it will always remain the acts to the acts that I told you everything including memory, then we look if there was injury and the questions are: is decisive or not to your purposes of deciding the DNA evidence? If you do not actually believe there has been no violation of the right of defense, but if DNA testing is critical then you need to ask, but the defense had the opportunity to examine the documents to be able to deduct against? He had charts, had the electropherograms had the amount of DNA, had the procedures? The answer you have it with you ... with all the acts that we attach to what we had and the last ordinance. Finally, conclude by pointing out that in ... by your order was placed, which was filed documentation, the documentation has been filed that no acts are the records we had requested and which have not yet been filed, so the Defense of Raffaele Sollecito in the submission of a statement where a much more complete the Maori lawyer and I resign myself to illustrate this exception Lordship really the importance of this decision.
PRESIDENT - The memory has been offered to other parties? ATTORNEY MAORI - We give a copy to the other parties.
