Tell me instead, first when you think the the prosecution was “caught”. Because I could recall several moments, but the choice it depends on what moment you ‘chose’ to say that the defence ‘caught’ someone. Chose an event, which you call the ‘defense catching’ someone, and I’ll demonstrate that – whatever event and moment you chose – there was a previous moment when the prosecution revealed the key information first.
In July 2009, for example, Manuela Comodi stated in court that the total amount of DNA on the metal bra clasp was 1.4 nanograms.
Only at that point, the defence complained that they didn’t have that information.
Comodi replied the information was in the SALs and in the quantization data.
Bongiorno requested the data and complained that she didn’t have them. Comodi pointed out that it was her fault if she didn’t have them, and said the prsecution did not object that they have it now (but they should have thought about it before).
So the judge ordered laboratory to give the ‘documentation’. The laboratory turned out the SALs.
Just like this, all the times information release starts from the prosecution. It is never the defence who ‘catches’ anyone.
Absolutely not. The negative TMB results were just noted in the documentation that the prosecution kindly presented to the defence, despite the defence experts had not attended the meetings they were summoned to with the laboratory staff, and despite the defence did not access the laboratory over the nine months investigation despite defence experts were offered free access to the documentation at Rome laboratory, and they never came.
And, most important, that information was not contending that the luminol prints were made in blood, from the point of view of the prosecution and their experts. It might have been ‘contending’ that only from the point of view of the defence.
It is not an ‘objective’ and ‘manifest’ contention, despite you think it is, for the reasons I already explained.
As I have already said, all information they used to argue about the TMB was extrapolated by documentation which had been previously released by the prosecution
But now you are entangling yourself in your contradictions. If you assert they offered ‘manufactured SALs’, then you should have a shred of evidence of that which you obviously don’t have, and you know that. But now if you instead claim that the defence got the information through the video, then you’re definitely entangled: the defence had been having all those videos for years! The defence experts were even supposed to be present when these videos were shot (they could have actually intervened and could have requested “pleas we want a TMB test on that stain”).
So you are now admitting the prosecution offered all the needed information years before.
Again, the same contradiction. The Stefanoni’s report contains the templates of all tests doen on samples and items. Now, it happens that not always these templates and pages are correct. There is almost always a TMB test indication, either positive or negative. This indication is missing in the luminol sample templates. If it was so easy to expect this test to be done, why didn’t the defence experts immediately notice that it was missing, and why didn’t they ask about it immediately?
Or maybe they asked, and Stefanoni explained that she did perform the test?
On several dates, several times, depending what information you are talking about.
If the defence is foolish, it’s not someone else’s fault. But I seriously doubt the defence was foolish. This defence was rather good and they got all the information they wanted whenever they actually wanted to have it. When they wanted to play games and rise pretexts instead, they did so.
I always remark that you don’t understand the term ‘discovery’ in this system. Discovery means that the defence experts are allowed unfettered access during the investigation, they put their explorer’s helmet on and they to do their research. But they need to actually do their research, they are not supposed to wait for the prosecution to build defence arguments, or to fetch and bring them the material for their research arguments.
The prosecution has a duty to bring defensive arguments when they find elements that they deem they are actual exculpatory evidence, they are not expected to build specious defensive arguments based on irrelevant findings or pretexts.
Moreover in the Italian system the defence not only is not directly provided the documentation (the documentation is only deposited at the chancellery) but in order to have a copy of documentation, they also need to pay to have them (and the payment is not an irrelevant fee: at that time it was something like 70 euros (maybe more) for each support, such as CDs, there was a high fee for paper documents etc.). You may dislike this feature of the system, it’s a legitimate opinion. But it’s an opinion and here we are talking about facts.
No they are not infinite; but I’m not asking for infinite series, I’m asking for one, likely or plausible substance, or in alternative, a substance whose presence has a corroboration.
I am also asking for a dynamic, which must be also likely and probable.
I’m sorry but I think this is a rambling away from logic. Frankly I don’t even understand it. Blood getting into moisture? (what does that mean?) I agree instead with Massei when he says there are obvious indication of a cleanup, even just when you look at at bathmat (completely soakad with water) with 10+ diluted stains on it lying on a clean floor: it means cleanup. Or when you see an isolated footprint in blood whith no trail of prints leading to it, and no source around for it (there is no ‘flat surface’ where someone has stepped, as Hellmann maintains – and if there was, it had been cleaned). This means cleanup. Or even when you notice that one of Rudy’s bloody shoeprints in the trail was missing, it was revealed only by the luminol: how didi t disappear? Or even just when you notice there are three towels soaked with blood: what purpose would you use a towel for, when you have liquids poured around, if not drying up or cleaning up the liquid?
I can’t prove? It has already been shown that these prints are compatible with Amanda and Sollecito’s. Do you consider this a probable random event? I can’t prove they were made at the same time? But where’s the logic in this? In order to explain they were made in two or three separate events, I would need two or three scenarios instead than one! It would be a multiplication of improbability, the improbablity of having an isolated print positive to luminol would be multiplicated for all the times this happened. The isolated prints have features that make them very peculiar and improbable, they have a very strong analogy (they have an incredible analogy with the bloody bathmat prints too), a single event, a single explanation for all of them is logically the most probable scenario.
There is no ‘falsifier’, because literature flatly says it’s not true that TMB is a falsifier if the luminol stain is sufficiently diluted.
Finally, it just makes no sense to say the prints are meaningless people walked there after the murder: nobody walked there barefoot, nobody walked there with wet bare feet, nobody walked there hopping or dragging a towel so to produce isolated footprints; maybe you also like to assert that someone stepped with wet feet in Amanda’s room.
