I got slightly carried away over at WS (not just me I hasten to add), and the thread has been deep-storaged for review. One thing I highlighted there was the amount of stuff the prosecution simply asserted without presenting evidence, that they seemed to imagine the court would just accept unquestioningly.
What really caused me to notice was the way Fulcanelli latched on to these points and repeated them as unquestionable fact, on the grounds that they'd been attested to in court under oath. But most of them look like lies to me. I'm not sure I can remember them all, but I'll try.
- The negative controls, that first didn't exist because Stefanoni would no more document them than she'd document washing her hands, which were then claimed to have been presented to the court with the original evidence bundle but which turned out not to have been, then a set of documents was hurriedly produced which had the wrong date and the wrong serial numbers, then later a better set was produced, "found in the garage".
Does anyone believe this (with the possible exception of Funcanelli)? It elevates "the dog ate my homework" into the realms of subtle deception.
- The "quarantine" gaps before the knife and bra clasp were analysed.
This assertion seems to be contradicted by the dates and times given earlier for some of the analyses - it would be handy to have some more detail on this.
- The absence of contamination with Meredith's profile on other samples run before the knife. Would these be from this case or other cases?
Unless these samples were run at the very high sensitivity settings used for the knife, and were samples that didn't have Meredith's DNA on them anyway, such contamination wouldn't be seen even if it was there. No such evidence seems to have been presented to the court, and the implication is that Novelli had evidence not seen by the court. In any case, since the knife results suggest only about one in ten such samples seems to have been so contaminated anyway. How many did Novelli look at?
- The magic plastic bags that are suitable for storing material for DNA analysis, suddenly dreamed up by Stefanoni to excuse her ruining the bra clasp even though she had previously stated that plastic was unsuitable.
For a start, she didn't say certified in what way. They could have been certified airtight, or 0.4mm gauge, or just about anything irrelevant. Anyway, there are no such US-certified polythene bags suitable for this purpose, because plastic is not suitable, end of. See this link.
http://www.dna.gov/audiences/investigators/know/collection "Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags. [...] Never place evidence that may contain DNA in plastic bags because plastic bags will retain damaging moisture." And if these bags were so great, how come the bra clasp rusted exactly as one would predict if using a non-magic poly bag?
- The statement about it being OK because the bags were placed in the freezer (or fridge).
This is absolute nonsense, putting such bags in the fridge is the worst thing you can possibly do, as it massively increases the condensation problem. See the same link again. "When transporting and storing evidence that may contain DNA, it is important to keep the evidence dry and at room temperature."
The impression I get is that these witnesses, particularly Stefanoni, are quite prepared to say anything that comes into their head, even on oath. And that includes bare-faced lying. Fabricated negative controls, magic poly bags, non-existent six-day gaps, anything.
There ought to be an inquiry into this, but I don't expect that will happen.
Rolfe.
