His motivations are plainly illegitimate. He was not allowed to determine “evidence claimed by the prosecution” by using another expert witness, first of all because it is not “evidence claimed by the prosecution”, this was an appeal, the evidence was already discussed and established by a court. In order to introduce new evidence into the discussion of this kind of points, a judge requires specific kind of motivations, you cannot call an expert just for the purpose of sorting out things between defence and prosecution cause you’re ignorant of the topic; especially evidence that has already gone through a court judgement. Hellmann’s motivations, besides illegitimate, are also unspecific and void, in fact inexistent.
That might be fine if Massei had acted like a real judge should have and ordered Stefanoni to turn over the electronic data files that were withheld in spite of repeated requests by the defense to have these files. In fact Massei called a early recess or prolonged recess in order that the defense be given ALL files and then to have time to get up to speed on that missing data.
What we learned from C & V (and Hellmann learned it too) was that Stefanoni was withholding the electronic data files and she continued to withhold these files even after an order from Hellmann. Finally after his second email to her does Stefanoni finally (one day before the independent expert review is due) turn over these files.
Now the experts must go to the judge and explain that their report will be late. Does the prosecution and that idiot Maresca think Hellmann and Mazetti are blind fools?
And when Mignini sends two separate goon squads to Rome to shake down the experts (they went only to get the DVD that sat in the Perugia courthouse always) do you think Hellmann was able to ignore this? Especially since both experts called him to say they were being questioned by Perugia police at their respective places of employment. Does Mignini think everyone is blind or stupid ?
This is absolutely the case. All parties were allowed to bring their experts, but this is not the same of fulfilling the duty to allow the same counter evidence on the point, whereas the law expressly concedes the right to present the proof a contrario, not just to debate the evidence presented with your expert witnesses. The court denied the party the right to present counter evidence of the kind requested such as an expert’s report or a further test.
I guess the same thing can then be said for Mignini since he withheld some of the important scientific data from the defense in the first trial...even Massei couldn't overlook that one and yet in the end the electronic data files never made it to the defense. How can you expect the defense to provide counter evidence when the prosecutor blatantly ignores the duty to provide the defense with all evidence. Mignini for this alone should be tossed in jail right now...lets see how clever he is in the next year as the full details of this prosecution come to light for the rest of the world.
The court denied your counter evidence because it can not allow you to continue your ridiculous fishing expedition forever. It would simply be unfair and in fact Hellmann allowed far too much leeway to the prosecution anyway. When Comodi called the judges unfair and against the prosecution ...in any civilized country the judge would have thrown her off the case at least, if not in jail for contempt as well. Hellmann remained silent but you are foolish to imagine he ignored this disrespect.
This is how FOA dream things to be. There isn’t any such thing as an expert entrusted with the power of judging other experts admitted by the law, although I understand this is precisely what people here would like to be made to Stefanoni.
In fact, the truth is that all the claims about the Police and Stefanoni’s work that are found in C&V report, were already present in the defence submissions. There is nothing new. There is no new information compared to what was already known. There is no new claim compared to what already known (except minor claims).
The claims of sloppy police work were indeed in the defense submissions. The proof that these claims were true was determined by an independent expert review ordered by the court.
A further point.
It is also false that Stefanoni lied. In fact, the claims that she had “lied” as you read them in the C&V report are also the same, identical claims that were already presented by the defence in the Massei’s trial. And, you can think whatever you like about Stefanoni, but the fact is that these claim by C&V are a repetition of known facts and thus they cast absolutely no light at all.
Stefanoni did lie ...have you ever heard of a lie by omission?
You say that Stefanoni lied, I say this is false. Stefanoni did not lie and was absolutely truthful, however she did not disclose her information in the preliminary hearing. She disclosed it in the trial, and she disclosed only truthful and correct information, which was deposited in her report. When she was asked about quantification in the preliminary hearing, she did not lie on the quantity but instead she answered she did not know, and then she said that it could be an amount of the kind of hundred picocrams. But she said “could” and “maybe”, and also said she did not have the datum with her.
The proof of her lies came from review of the electronic data files...this data provided the details of exactly why she wished to hide these files.
You may not like her strategy of not disclosing data in the earlier judicial phase, but this is a matter of your dislikes. You project your own idea of how an expert should act like in any occasion in your likes.
Actually she may just be sloppy and inaccurate in her work...but then why does she fight to keep the EDF hidden for so long?
Instead, in order to state that an expert “lied”, you have to meet a precise meaning by the law, that requires the expert to state or disclose false data, or state false facts about the matter of their research. The only experts who stated false facts are C&V: they stated that the negative controls tests did not exist.
Ah...actually (and Hellmann noticed this too) Comodis two lame efforts to sneak false control data sheets were both caught by the court...first by a regular juror going over the days files who noticed that the dates and numbers failed to match. Remember that? Hellmann calls recess and gives her an hour to find the real file since she promises it is in the record. She failed to find it....Remember that? And days later she tries again to introduce a fake control data file (she found it in a storage garage) and Hellmann (again she should have been tossed in jail) firmly tells her he doesn't care what sheets she now provides it cant disprove contamination before the sample ever got to the lab. Any of this ringing any bells for you? The truth is no legitimate control data was ever produced... again, who can say if Stefanoni lied or was simply sloppy and inaccurate in her work...
They based their argument about contamination regarding the knife on this false assumption. They were stating the false.
What Stefanoni did was not at all stating false data (nor to destroy evidence), it was just not disclosing data at a certain stage; when questioned at the trial she disclosed data and the data was truthful, and deposited truthful data. What C&V did, instead, is indeed stating false data.
