Some remarks to Machiavelli's posts
About reopening of the debate regarding DNA:
Hellman lacks of any motivation. To do something legitimate he should have written in his instance requesting new evidence something like “I distrust this finding specifically of Stefanoni because of this specific reason”.
Hellmann:
Furthermore, in the case in question, the defence consultants during the first stage trial criticized the evidence collection [refertazione] and testing activities performed by the Scientific Police both in terms of method and results, based on arguments worthy of particular regard due to their depth and their inception in professors and technicians of unquestioned respect: as a result, the completion of a court-ordered expert review in order to determine the existence [or otherwise] of the aforementioned circumstantial elements appeared, to this Court, to be indispensable.
I think this is going to be specific enough for the Supreme Court. He distrust "Dr" Stefanoni because real doctors and professors distrust her and gave arguments for that distrust.
The prosecution wanted the new DNA result detected by Vecchiotti to be tested and the profile extracted, as Novelli suggested, the judge refused the test. The prosecution requested a bio-statystical expert report to shed light on a question mark left by C&V report in the second part, where talks about alternative interpretations of alleles in Sollecito’s profile, demanding a more precise estimation of probabilities by an expert.
Well, Hellmann decided that what he has already answers the question of tests reliability and existence of DNA evidence. What the prosecution wanted was either unreliable in itself or unnecessary and had no potential of changing the obvious outcome.
Comodi then demanded to allow the negative control as counter evidence (undermining the reliability of Vecchiotti’s method and assumptions), the judge refused this one too.
That was unnecessary, too, since the controls were just one, not very important elements of C-V report. There was a big questionmark about the genuine nature of those unreadable copies coughed up strangely late.
About Stefanoni:
The kitchen knife was already huge news two weeks after the crime.
By the time Stafanoni testified in front of GUP the knife was obviously known to be important. The prosecution knew they have nothing else solid apart from the two DNA items.
Stefanoni lied not only in court, but also in her technical report ( RTIGF). She wrote she quantified the sample with result positive for DNA with PCR. The documentation revealing she used fluorimeter and got "too low" result emerged much later, during the trial, isn't it?
And the question is not about the method used, but the negative result that miraculously turned into positive, both in her report and her testimony.
1) Vecchiotti perfectly knows that in fact Stafanoni “provided” nothing, instead she released what Vecchiotti demanded;
Yet some of the requested items were provided as late as May 2011, after involving the Judge.
2) Vecchiotti stated in a written declaration “we already have all we need”; Comodi later commented “they demanded what was useless, and demanded nothing of what was useful”.
They demanded electropherograms of all the runs, control runs were not among them. If Stefanoni had nothing to hide she would have provided all the graphs and raw data.
They were right in that they had enough to assess reliability already.
3) The negative controls existed, not “possibly” as you say, but for sure, it is proven. The negative controls were presented in the trial (see Galati’s appeal) the court said they were unnecessary, nobody questioned their existence. So Stefanoni got rid of nothing, and your insinuation is offensive.
I don't trust they were real, especially given their very late emergence.
4) the most important, Vecchiotti indeed worded “not provided”, but in fact, after stating “they are not provided” she *assumed* they did not exist. And then she build her argument about contamination on the assumption they did not exist (in fact her argument about the knife rests entirely on this false assumption).
No, they were just a single element among many problems, unable on it's own to turn the overall assessment.
No raw files were provided to the court appointed experts. They just got scans of electropherograms. That they were sent by e-mail doesn't make them raw data. Were the raw files provided, control runs would have been among the data. I'm afraid it was Stefanoni who decided to withheld the controls. Probably for similar reasons she "forgot" about the negative quantification and negative TMB tests before.
The personal animosities would have mattered anything if the report was without merit. Unfortunately the problems indicated by C & V objectively existed. Improper collection, improper testing, no quantification, no proper contamination prevention, no presence of blood or other cells confirmed.
that makes you think I did hmmmmmm 
