It would be interesting to see the transcript, but I don't expect it to resolve this controversy.
How could this fail to resolve the controversy?
If the statements were correctly reported by the press (and they obviously were) this implies C&V declared they had obtained all what they requested and that the cooperation was unfettered.
Now, if you maintain that such declaration
won't solve the controversy, then you imply that C&V's declaration was
false. So you imply that C&V are witnesses who make false declarations in court. If you imply so, you blow away any possible credibility from them.
So either they are not credible and you should toss their report and everything else they claimed, or they did obtein all what they had requested.
I have correspondence showing that C&V requested the EDFs before May 2011. Leila has posted (on IIP) an excerpt from the June 2011 transcript in which they claimed not to have the negative controls, which would have been part of the EDFs.
This does not change the fact that - subsequently to their correspondence - they declared
they obtained all files that they requested.
Nobody here prevents you from posting the full correspondence that you have - but certainly as for the official trial documents, what they declared is what is official. And there is nothing that goes against such claim in their report; cause you know they never mention the lack of
raw data files nor any request for raw data files.
That does not reconcile with a blanket endorsement of Stefanoni's cooperation
That's what they declared, and it's quite difficult to make it go away.
Moreover, I point out that - apart from the complete "correspondence" which you assert you have, while you don't disclose it (and I bet you wil not disclose a
complete correspondence) - you and the colpevolisti are not able to cite any formal instance to have such files submitted by the defence to a court. Ghirga and Dalla Vedova wrote several instances to the Supreme Court during the course of the trial, all about other topics. Is there a request by Bongiorno or Ghirga on this topic to the Supreme Court? Is there a request to Hellmann? A request to Micheli, or to Ricciarelli?
And of course, as Halides has said, a number of other scientists have sought this data, and continue to be most interested in obtaining it.
This has no bearing with the case. I might search an ancient Papa Smurf collection piece, everyone can "search" or wish to have something; but things like evidence from an ongoing trial can be requested only by legal representatives involved in the trial.
If the high court had disposed of the case, their interest might be expected to wane. But, with the prospect of another appeal that may be followed by an extradition proceeding, we can be sure their interest will persevere.
Those are speculations founded on a void, als long as there is just no evidence any request was ever submitted.
They won't be swayed by enthusiastic claims that Italian police labs are above reproach, that forensic DNA contamination is less likely than a meteor strike.
I am not swayed by proclaims about laboratories whitholding evidence or denying things or lying, when such wild claims are just unfounded, and obviously, plainly contradicting the defence's actual actions.
As you have maintained? LOL. Stop stealing my best ideas. You're kidding no one.
. The point was that the police hadn't asked her or she would have mentioned it like the Vaseline. I contend that an innocent Amanda asked about detail like what she wore would have mentioned it
