Stefanoni's claim in court was that she forgot to mention the TMB test when Gino pointed the test out in court. I assume that Gino got this info from the SAL's so I dont understand why Stefanoni could not have refreshed her own memory of this critical detail...in fact it is notable that several key facts about a small number of questionable samples often eluded Stefanonis memory when it was discovered she was giving false information to the court. Darn if she didn't forget her notes about one thing...or simply assumed that everyone understood that she "always" did negative controls and never noted them. Or that she never provided EDF's to anyone on any defense because they had no need for them...etc.
First of all pay some attention to exactt words; because the choice of semantics is very important in legal things: the actual defence submission does not say “in contradiction”.
In fact, it
avoids using the term contradiction, apparently on purpose; it says instead “in contrasto”, more vague, that in Italian means “contrarily to”, but just implies a difference, in this case we guess the difference is an omission. While it does
not say 'contradiction'. They would have certainly used the term “contradiction” if there was actually some room to say that.
As usually, you are 1) buying blindfolded the defence narrative, and then 2) you are mystifying it, attributing to it a logical value which is not the one it has.
It's not the important thing anyway; it just won’t be the first time your narrative, aka the propaganda and defence narrative, hinges around false claims or twistings of facts.
Let’s recall some, making some examples.
While picking a defence suggestion you (and people here) claimed that Chiriboga 'contradicted' Quintavalle, and that she stated that Knox did not come into the shop. This is what you claimed: that
Chiriboga stated that Knox did not enter the shop.
I pointed out that your assertion is wrong; you insisted repeating it, despite you had no proof, convinced about your belief; but I was right. Chriboga simply does not know if anyone entered the shop that morning. You can check Chiriboga’s testimony now in the Meredith Wiki project.
L. Maori: You said that on Nov 2. you begun working at seven thirty. At seven thirty, were there clients, people inside the shop?
A. M. Chiriboga: On that day, I don’t remember. Well, sometimes there are people and sometimes there aren’t. I don’t remember, because since I used to be in the storage area at that hour, my colleague used to be at the cash desk, and Marco [Quintavalle], he was around
L. Maori: So you don’t remember about people
A. M. Chiriboga: No.
Another false claim was that the police “destroyed three hard drives”. About this, I also pointed out that it was an incorrect assertion, actually the police damaged the drive control boards but they did not destroy the drives and their contents, and in fact they had actually recovered the content of two of them.
What I said can be checked in the documentation:
defence computer expert report said:
(..) Following authorisation from the Preliminary Investigative Judge, the three disks have been sent to the Italian head office of the Krollontrak company
http://www.krollontrack.com, to proceed with the recovery.
(…)
Following notification from Prof Bernaschi, concerning the arrival of the three disks, after activity at the Krollontrak company, a new meeting had been advised to verify the recovery of the data on the three disks the subject of expert examination.
The two disks belonging to R Sollecito’s computer and Meredith Kercher’s Apple computer, the Fujitsu and the Hitachi,
have been recovered, in terms of their contents, following activity at the Krollontrak company, then furnished to Prof Bernaschi, while the attempt at recovering data from the Toshiba disk belonging to Miss Amanda Knox’s computer had not been possible (…)
However you probably go on believing this false claim. You probably believed Sollecito’s when lied in his book about this, suggesting that the police destroyed the hard drive content of his Asus laptop, and thus complained that by doing this they “destroyed the evidence that would exculpate him”: in fact, the drive was recovered, the content was entirely saved, copied, analysed and there was just no evidence of his alibi inside it.
Then there was an allegation that Mignini offered a satanic or ritual murder scenario; while in fact, nothing of this kind can actually fit with his court argument.
There was also the wild claim that the prosecution placed an inflammatory photography in British tabloids, a claim which also was proven unfounded (moreover the Daily Mirror bought the pictures from Barcroft Media), and even the “short and fat” person who allegedly took photos with a little camera was obviously compatible with Profazio and not with Mignini (who has not even a white suit in the videos btw).
You also asserted that Stefanoni was merely a “technician” and not a biologist, that she only had a bachelor’s degree, that she came from a third rate university: in fact, Stefanoni has a five-year degree (cum laude) in molecular biology at the Federico II University of Naples, and after that (something I discovered recently) she was a researcher for eight years at the Federico II University before entering the Rome police laboratory team.
So several claims of yours, and some of the defence, are proved to be factually incorrect.
After your false claims about Chiriboga, the hard drives etc., now there is a claim that Stefanoni lied in the preliminary hearing talking about the Dec. 18. TMB tests on the luminol stains, or about quantization.
I won’t be surprised if these claims turn out to be false when we look at the transcripts. I don’t have these preliminary hearing transcripts yet. But everything suggests you are wrong again.
Meanwhile, I recall that Dr. Potenza was summoned at Stefanoni’s laboratory when the DNA tests on the knife were carried on. If he were there, he would be supposed to know everything about negative controls, the use of fluorimeter and quantization; he never objected negative control were not done, neither he demanded them to be performed, nor video recorded nor verbalized anything; he defence also did not request further documentation about the knife; they also did not request to delay the DNA tests while awaiting to hire expert team, or they did not object to Stefanoni be the one to perform them (they could have asked the preliminary investigative judge to appoint another expert).
But about the Dec. 18. luminol tests and TMB tests and DNA samples test on the corridor stains, the defence expert panels were assembled, they were summoned, they did not object and they were supposed to be present.
On top of this, a defence claim that Stefanoni lied about TMB tests – while such tests were carried on in the open, before the summoned experts and even video recorded - sounds quite obviously illogical. May be soon proven false like the other claims.
