It was bizarre to re-read those sections of Massei which refer to trace 36B - ostensibly about the determination of 36B's identity, who it belonged to and whether or not was blood-DNA.
I'll have to read it again, but Massei never really comes out and says he agrees with Stefanoni's reasoning. But it is almost as if the conversation is like this
of Patrizia Stefanoni (PS) at the new Florence trial, with Massei's own conclusions from his 2010 motivations report in her mouth.:
Q: Is it blood-related DNA in the grove, this trace 36B?
PS: Well it should have been.
Q: Should have been? What do you mean by that?
PS: Well this is the murder weapon, and that is a trace of Meredith's DNA which survived cleaning.
Q: Where did you find it?
PS: in one of the scratches on the blade?
Q: Is this the only scratch?
PS: No, there are many.
Q: Professor Cingolani, the expert witness appointed by the GIP [judge of the preliminary hearing] for the incidente probatorio[pre-trial taking of evidence], who was shown the knife, Exhibit 36, during this hearing, it having been made [313] available at the express request of the defence, declared that he had not seen such scratches.
(cf Massei, page 311)
PS: Well, Judge Massei concluded that the Professor could not have used the same lighting as I had, and concluded that I had moved the knife from side to side under better lighting conditions than the Professor.
Q: You're kidding me. That was Judge Massei's reasoning?
PS: Sir, your argument is not with me. I saw the scratches. The Professor did not.
Q: All right. Moving on. So why would a trace survive in this scratch and not the others... or for that matter, why would 36A survive on the handle which had no scratches?
PS: Well, first of all the cleaning was thorough, that is evidenced by the very lack of any material at all. We're just fortunate to have what we have.
Q: So, ok, you are saying that 36B should have been blood-DNA. Why isn't it?
PS: Well that's just my point, there's no way to tell what it once was. As a separate issue, it's not the cleaning per se, it is that there is such a small sample. It also has to do with making a choice about what we want to find out with such a small sample.
Q: Well, it's not the issue, per se, of a small sample is it, Ms. Stefanoni? To quote another expert the problem is that
your finding was at the level where the next lowest setting on the the base value (or threshold setting) of the kit; it could even have been equal to zero. This result should have led to cessation of the analysis, should it not? If the concentration of DNA was below the threshold value of the instrument: "we have surely before us a low copy number situation". (cf. Massei page 274, Sarah Gino.)
PS: well, that in and of itself is a different issue. You're mixing up things. I thought we were talking about whether or not thhe actual DNA found was blood- or non-blood-DNA?
Q: Well, it's two fold, is it or is it not Meredith's DNA - let's at least establish that before talking about blood.
PS: Well, you could have started like that, instead of wandering back and forth between issues.
Q: So, okay, let's go back to the issue of blood. You said that in good lighting and by varying the angle [point of view] with respect to the light - striations [scratches] could be seen. Analysis gave a
biological profile attributable to Meredith?
(Massei p. 308.)
PS: Correct.
Q: A "biological profile"?
PS: Yes.
Q: Why not "blood-DNA"?
PS: Well, with all due respect, we're not there yet, you'll need to explore some more.
Q: Ok, Professor Cingolani
(the expert witness nominated by the GIP [preliminary hearing judge]) says it was not possible to know the nature of the biological trace that had apparently been found on the blade, and in fact the test for blood had given a negative result.
PS: Well, it was not so much the material found, it was further that the quantity of DNA was too low ("troppo basso") to be able to perform the tests and to consider those results reliable. In the presence of too low DNA, the risk of a contamination capable of altering the results is very high because the contaminating DNA could end up on the specimen to be tested.
Q: Are you not then admitting that there was no blood-DNA on that knife?
PS: No, what I am saying is that the quantity of DNA was too low to perform the test.
Q: Excuse me?
PS: To do that test that if done could contaminate the specimen.
Q: Why then would you even suspect blood?
PS: The negative result of the test performed to determine the haematological nature of the material of specimen B does not per se exclude the haematological nature of the specimen. (cf. Massei's own conclusion, page 310.)
Q: Excuse me?
PS: Just because the test came back negative does not mean that blood-DNA had not originally been there. It could have been removed, for instance, with the cleaning of the knife.
Q: You mean the "hypothetical cleaning"?
PS: No, "the" cleaning. Nothing else was found on a knife used for ordinary household chores. No one disputes that it had been cleaned.
Q: But I mean, "a cleaning in connection to the crime," which, getting back to what we're talking about, would explain a negative result in the test for blood.
PS: Ok, if you want to put it that way.
Q: So what you are saying, Ms. Stefanoni, is that the outcome of test, [which was] negative for blood, did not necessarily signify the non-haematological nature of the trace, as it might have been derived from too small a quantity of material to have allowed a positive result, even if that substance had been blood?
(cf. Massei. page 310.)
PS: Yes, that is what I'm saying.
Q: And?
PS: well, it's a choice - at those low levels it's a choice between knowing who it belongs to or what it is. I chose to find out who it belonged to not what it was.
Q: please say more about that.
PS: It's a choice, whereby the greatest quantity of DNA had been used to determine the biological profile rather than the nature of the specimen, provided a basis for the subsequent assessments: it is preferable to know to whom a given biological specimen is attributable, rather than ascertaining the nature of that same specimen, without any possibility of attributing it to anyone. (cf. Massei, page 311.)
Q: So, you do not know if it is blood-DNA, because you chose instead to identify the owner of the sample?
PS: Well, yes and no, it's not as simple as that.
Q: well, this IS your testimony, you've just testified that it IS that simple.
PS: Well, it actually is. But it isn't. The defence in the first trial did not raise any objections to this.
Q: Excuse me?
PS: The first court in 2009 accepted this premise thusly, "With respect to the affirmation according to which the negative test for blood does not necessarily signify absence of blood in the sample being analysed, no significant counter-arguments were put forward. Moreover, Dr. Stefanoni’s explanation of this point seems convincing: if the quantity is minimal, the negative outcome of the test may also be a result of the insufficient quantity used for the test itself."
Q: Well, that was then and this is now.
And even at the end of all these contortions as found at the Massei court, recorded in his motivations, here's what Judge Massei concludes about trace 36B..... you decide if it is a ringing endorsement of it being blood-DNA.
.
.
