I actually think this supports the fact that she didn't have them. Clearly she emailed asking for them several times. Why didn't someone respond telling her they were in the file? The prosector asserts they were in the file but no one has seen them there. Did he put on a witness who confirmed they were in the file since 2008... or ever?
And honestly, he is just as confusing or dancing around as she is, if not more. This doesn't do much for your argument they were available, IMO.
I am very surprised that you don’t understand the gravity of what Vecchiotti is saying, its implications.
1. first of all, you say “clearly she mailed asking for them several times”. But this is not true. Maybe that was not clear enough from my hasty translation. In fact she says the opposite: she says she
did not ask them, not even once. Her answer is contorted, it consists in admitting she asked
for something else, and she implies that she never, never specifically asked about negative controls.
She actually says more and explains in the end what she asked. Let’s see what she says at the beginning (I try to correct some translation imprecisions):
”Vecchiotti: Io ho chiesto alla dottoressa Stefanoni più volte e lei sa che me li ha mandati più volte i file relativi agli esami che aveva fatto, era ovvio che ci dovessero essere e non c'erano.”
” Vecchiotti: I asked Dr. Stefanoni several times - and you know she sent them to me several times – the files about the laboratory tests she had performed, it was obvious that they should have been there and they were not there”.
I asked... the files about the laboratory tests.
(not "the negative controls")
So when Comodi asks “did you request the negative controls ?” Vecchiotti answers “I asked for the files related to the tests “. Which implies she did
not request the negative controls.
It means she never wrote any e-mail saying like “the negative controls are missing in my documentation, could you pleas send me the negative controls?”. Nothing like that. Nada.
What comes out instead is that Vecchiotti in fact asked just what a court expert is supposed to request, that is the pieces documentation that were not already included in the trial file.
In fact we are talking about
the files which were not already included in the case file.
Bear in mind Stefanoni is not supposed give anything to Vecchiotti directly, what she gives should go through the courts or anyway the courts must have a copy of it, and you do not deposit twice at the court. You may anyway not ask Stefanoni for a file which is already in the case file, because a file is not deposited twice.
Vecchiotti admits even that Stefanoni was “cooperative”: in Sept. 7. she repeats again what she said on May 21. 2011, calling her “cooperative”. I don’t see how one can interpret the word “cooperative” but that she gave her
everything se requested. Cooperative can only be interpreted meaning hat she did send
all of what she requested. Had she failed or declined to send one piece of documentation, this would have been uncooperative on her part. Vecchiotti says “collaborativa” (cooperative) and this can only mean she answered positively to all requests. The request we know was of sending documents that were not included in the trial file. We know Stefanoni sent files to Vecchiotti twice, and nothing in Vecchiotti’s report says Vecchiotti was not satisfied with the sending or that she had a refusal (we will talk again about the details of this).
2 . Now, something else, something extremely serious which you seem to not realize here, is the implication of what is stated by Comodi and Vecchiotti’s answers: Comodi states the negative controls were deposited on a preliminary judge hearing on Oct . 8. 2008. It’s a statement which is not denied by any documentation, and could hardly be denied since the hearing transcript exist as well as the chancellery records of what was deposited that day.
But Vecchiotti states that she didn’t know that the negative controls were deposited at the preliminary hearing. Is it possible that you don’t see how serious the implication of this?
The point is Vecchiotti quoted the Oct. 2008 preliminary hearing extensively in her report. Her reading of the transcripts of the preliminary hearing
is among the basis on which Vecchiotti builds her arguments about the knife, on which she attempts to attack Stefanoni’s “credibility” using her declarations about the knife and her guess about the DNA amount. The 2008 preliminary hearing is the hearing from which Vecchiotti quotes (or actually twists and misquotes) Stefanoni, where Stefanoni says that she doesn’t have documents about quantization but says it’s a low template, and maybe the whole amount could be in the magnitude of hundreds pictograms. Vecchiotti attacks Stefanoni on this ridiculous argument parroting the defence, and does this based on the reading of those very transcripts
the content of which she now claims she doesn’t know.
The first part of C&V report’s chapter about the knife is based on an alleged scrutinizing of Stefanoni’s cross-questioning at the Oct. 2008 preliminary hearing.
In those transcripts, it is recorded that Stefanoni deposits negative controls (twice, on two days) and in that very same hearing Stefanoni also declares that the Polizia di Stato usually do not deposit negative controls, but they do and have negative controls about everything.
(anyway, please never forget that negative controls were available to Prof. Potenza who was
there when the tests were performed, and to all parties who were offered access to the laboratory, btw).
But then, Sept 2011, after “using” the transcripts as a basis of her report, Vecchiotti declares she doesn’t know what was said in that hearing. That she hears this information now for the first time.
Which means: basically she admits that she
did not read the transcripts that she quoted, which she asserts she searched and used for her report.
3 . You ask why didn’t they just “send” things to Vecchiotti (even if not specifically requested?). But this question seems naïve to me. Vcchiotti said she was sent what she requested and relatedly declared Stefanoni was cooperative. But asking “why didn’t Stefanoni send her something more?” is equivalent of asking “why didn’t Stefanoni help Vecchiotti to write her report?” “Why didn’t Stefanoni give Vecchiotti some unrequested, further indications in order her work better, more credible and more documented?”.
This question sound like a joke to me.
Then by the way I can’t fail notice the several expressions Vecchiotti say. She says “we were not shown” (the negative controls).
They didn’t show them to us? What does it mean? It’s an amazing statement. Vecchiotti is paid for her work. She is paid good money by the court to do a
research. She references court documents, she asserted she read the Oct. 2008 preliminary hearing of Stefanoni, she quoted it, and is supposed to have done that herself, together with Conti, and with no one’s else help.
She is the one supposed to perform DNA tests and to search things; nobody was paid to “show” her something, and there were no hearings, no meetings or venues where people (Comodi or others) were expected to “show” her anything. She needs to collect and to requests documentation herself.
What kind of ‘expectation’ is that about someone sending further material to Vecchiotti? What’s her complaint that she didn’t know, never heard about what happened in a hearing or that she ‘was not shown’ things? And what’s this idea that other people should send her things even if not requested, just to “help” her to not make mistakes in her report? So that it comes out more reliable?
Btw you may also know Vecchiotti is an enemy of Stefanoni: they hate each other . As for Vecchiotti, we are talking about person who was shamed in the Albarello-Pascali-Vecchiotti research on the Olgiata case, and Stefanoni is the person who caught and incriminated Vecchiotti’s friend Pascali for his false report. Stefanoni has clues to understand that Vecchiotti is into that for evil purposes. Vecchiotti is paid a lot of money by the court for her report (and I think by others too), Stefanoni is not paid, an you says Stefanoni should ‘help’ Vecchiotti so that her report comes out better documented and more reliable? ‘My dear Carla why don’t you look into the preliminary hearing at page… , I don’t want you to miss the correct reference to the negative controls, so that that the report by which you intend to defame me is not affected by errors and appears more credible’.
The truth is Stefanoni has provided everything that was requested as was her duty, and nobody can prove otherwise. And Vecchiotti has lied, as she was caught having not read the key information in the documentation that she uses as reference . It is up to Vecchiotti to not make mistakes. She was supposed to have searched documentation as she used documentation and quoted it, but was caught unaware about its content. By implying she did not read what is actually written in the transcripts she uses, she shows that in fact it was not her own research, she was fed the indication by someone else (defences?).
Vecchiotti also failed to mention any alleged denial of information on the part of Stefanoni, in her report. She never said she refused to fulfil a request. Never.
Vecchiotti also admit she did not make any request more specific than just “false that were not deposited” with the court.
*
Look at the rest. Of what Vecchiotti says. C&V “were not shown”. As I said, prosecutors and experts are not paid to show anything to her but Vecchiotti is not even expected to have any contact with Stefanoni or the prosecution . But then there is also this ‘drop in’ statement from Vecchiotti ‘they should know’ if the files were included.
Who are “they”? She is the one who supposed to have read, she is the one who decided to quote the very source that she referenced to. She is the court’s expert, she is supposed to request the chancellery of the Preliminary Judge to have the negative controls that were deposited or to see what documents are actually there. Now, who else but her is supposed to ‘know’ about whether the negative controls are in the file? Who are
“they” ?!
Look at this in the perspective of Statement Analysis (that is, you assume that the people mostly say exactly what they mean to say). Vecchiotti mentions this as if it was an exculpatory argument, she points to someone and says “they” should know. The responsibility of this – she says – is of someone else. What does this “they” mean ? Is she thinking about those
who told her what to write in her report? Is it the defence attorneys?
You say the prosecutor asserts there are negative controls, but I’m not sure that they are there. But the point is not that the prosecutor asserts: the fact that that documents are deposited at a court hearing in the case file, is something recorded the hearing transcripts. Vecchiotti must have had encountered this information, and if this information was worth verification on her part, she must have verified it.
If Vecchiotti red transcript, if she got the information that the negative controls of the knife existed, and also that negative controls were deposited with the court, she would have to request them through Hellmann to the Preliinary Judge office or top Stefanoni, and if she encountered a refusal or a failure to fulfil request, she should have (and would have) reported about that in the C&V report; she would have said “at the hearing Stefanoni declared that she always performed negative controls; the transcript recprds that she deposited negative controls; we searched did no find them at the court” or “we have requested the missing ones to Stefanoni and she did not send them to us”.
But there is nothing of all this in her report.
It’s not a chance that the Supreme Court openly rules out that C&V could have been “intellectually honest”.
Notice also how Vecchiotti wriggles away from the topic in attempts to grasp for some specious argument:
she says “we asked for files” (generic) then immediately shifts on something else, says: look, think about what “the others” have requested. The other party! She says ‘the other party’ (the defence) even requested the raw data.
First, think about how does she happen to know about the defence requests. Second, she says “the defence requested”, not “I requested”. It implies,
she did not request the raw data.
“They” requested, not “I requested”.
What kind of answer is that? From a court expert?
We don’t know if Stefanoni sent her the raw data because – contrarily to what Charlie Wilkes claims - we
do not have the e-mails (we only have
one e-mail from Stefanoni to Hellmann, and don’t know really the whole of Vecchiotti-Stefanoni exchange). But what we know for certain, is that Vecchiotti
never complains about missing raw data.
No mention about any alleged refusal to provide raw data is ever made in the C&V report.
Nor in C&V’s court testimonies.
All we know is Vecchiotti and Conti do not complain about raw data, never say they were refused, never says that they were useful or important, never say their alleged missing was an issue against the credibility of Stefanoni or for the completeness of their work to seek contamination, an issue of any kind.
And when it comes to her questioning, what she does say is that “others” requested the raw data (not her).
This is why I say she is inconsistent like a petty criminal. Look at the pervasive pattern of logical contradiction. She states that negative control do not exist, when asked why she says because it was obvious, they should have been attached there unrequested, and the fact that files are not sent in attachment even if unrequested
it means they do not exist. In order to sound more convincing, she brings an ‘explanation’, an example, which should support her argument. And how does she argue? She brings an example: look what “others” have requested, the defence asked them (how does she know that?) but they were not given them. The example is supposedly intended to motivate the argument that if something is not sent or given, it means doesn’t exist, but what does the example mention? It mentions something that she know it exists, even if it was not put in the file.
This inconsistent, specious way of building arguments, made ramblings, half admissions, unconnected pretexts, is the speaking of a criminal.
