Bruce posted this on IIP and I think it would be nice to get more info on what is actually written in the RIS report, apart from obvious findings regarding 36I.
Bruce Fischer
This is optimistic.
I don't think this is correct at all. While it appears correct that the Carabinieri report does validate the techniques and protocols used by Vecchiotti, I think it's incorrect to state that the Carabinieri have "confirmed once more that there is no trace of Meredith on the knife".
I would repeat that the only task given to the Carabinieri was the testing of Vecchiotti's sample 36I. The Carabinieri apparently never had custody of the knife itself, nor of any of Stefanoni's samples, nor of any of Vecchiotti's samples other than her 36I. It therefore appears impossible for the Carabinieri to have "confirmed" anything regarding whose DNA was or wasn't on Stefanoni's swab 36B (the swab on which Meredith's DNA was allegedly found).
I would also add one other thing: the actual issue here is not strictly whose DNA was found on the various swab samples taken from the knife. Indeed, in my opinion it appears highly probable that Meredith's DNA - in extremely small quantities - was discovered by Stefanoni when she ran her sample 36B through the equipment. The real issue is one of the probative value pf that DNA finding, which in turn is directly linked to how and why the DNA came to be found from the testing.
There are various ways in which Meredith's DNA could have been identified on swab 36B. The only way that means anything is if that DNA was present on the knife at the time it was seized by the police from Sollecito's apartment, and was subsequently collected on swab 36B and tested. However, there are various other mechanisms by which Meredith's DNA could have ultimately been identified on swab 36B. For instance, it could have been deposited on the knife when the knife was improperly removed from an evidence bag at the police station and put in a non-sterile cardboard box; or Meredith's DNA could have been deposited on the knife during its analysis and testing in Stefanoni's laboratory (especially given that Stefanoni provably failed to follow the strict safeguards that are mandatory when working with such minute low-template quantities of DNA); or Meredith's DNA could have been in or on the equipment within Stefanoni's laboratory, and was transferred to swab 36B during the testing procedure (again, it's provable that Stefanoni failed to follow necessary low-template protocols, and there was plenty of Meredith's DNA already present in the laboratory).
What's meant to happen (in a competent lab) is that the forensic scientists are supposed to take every reasonable precaution to minimise the possibility of contamination or other malpractice. They are supposed to follow carefully-documented procedures, and to rigorously document their own work. It's only under those circumstances that any results - especially in the low-template range - should be considered reliable and probative. Stefanoni manifestly did not do any of this, and that's the chief reason why her work should be regarded as unreliable for use in a murder trial.
Simply speaking, any alleged finding of Meredith's DNA by Stefanoni on swab 36B should be considered null and void, owing to the widescale incompetence and malpractice employed by Stefanoni (and others involved in the chain of custody of the knife). That's what Conti and Vecchiotti concluded, and it's the correct conclusion. It now remains to be seen whether the new appeal court will accept this conclusion. If it does - as it should - then the knife no longer has any evidential relevance to the trial.
