I do understand what you are trying to say. I don’t agree though. Here is why:
You assert that Vecchiotti is dishonest and had no intention of verifying Stefanoni’s work, no matter what she found when reviewing it. The problem with this theory is if that were true, why would Stefanoni make it easier for her to have a problem with her work? Why wouldn’t Stefanoni make darn sure everything was pristine? And for god’s sake why would Stefanoni play right into something previously brought up by the defense? If the defense had stated there were no negative controls and hired an expert to review the case, of all the things Stefanoni could have done to sabotage the review, why would she choose something she was already suspected of? As you state, there were other arguments an expert could have used. What I am saying is the whole thing does not make sense from a human behavior point of view. If, as you state, Stefanoni and the prosecution knew what arguments were going to be used, why would they play right into them? It makes no sense, it does not fit. If it does not fit, you must… never mind, it’s an American saying.
I think there are wrong assumptions in this. You say "suspected of", while Stefanoni was actually not suspected of nothing.
I think it's clear that Stefanoni's duty about the negative controls ends when she deposits the negative controls on Oct. 8.
At that point the documentation belings to the court. I mean, she will never be expected to care about presenting the same documentation a second time. That won't be a correct procedure. There is no reason why a persn would fololow that.
That said, well, it seems logical to me. I don't see logic in your argument actually.
It seems to me Stefanoni did everything correctly. And what she did, all proved to be the correct behaviour under a lawyerish point of view.
Maybe you shouldn't think of Stefanoni as a person who feels suspected of being dishonest. Because this was never actually the case. In reality, Stefanoni did not present further documentation such as the raw data, not because she didn't want to, but because the judges didn't want to.
Stefanoni has always been 'behind the wings of judges', in rality she was never suspected of anything. This aura of suspicion araound Stefanoni, the idea that her works should be put under trial and exposed or scrutinized, is something devised and nurtured in the US, by pro-Knox environments first, and then, later, was partly adopted by the defence narrative. But has never been something real, something existing in Italian courts, until Vecchiotti's report.
Stefanoni did nothing actually to sabotage the expert's review (which is not even supposed to be, actually, a
review of Stefaoni's work).
Simply, Stefanoni did not interact with Vecchiotti more than what strictly necessary, and each interaction was documented. That was her policy.
She did not contribute to Vecchiotti's work in any way.
I don't see what she could do more, or what the purpose of further actions could be.
You said that she would have sent all the documentation, rather than omitting some files. Maybe. But I don't see why assume she would do that necessarily.
First, the test is an incidente probatorio thus you can't really have "all documentation" in the legal sense, since the validity of the event includes the presence of other witnesses and parties. Second some files are already deposited, and since Stefanoni is not supposed to just send material directly (meaning that she cannot just give things to Vecchiotti, copies all files must also be deposited with the court, and every transfer of document must be recorded by the judge) she would have to deposit some files twice. Third, it appears from Stefanoni's e-mail style that she wants e-mails (a document) reporting explicits requests of all files, of every single piece of documentation; in other words she wants to keep a record whenever she gives something, she wants to keep a document reporting the written request (so that nobody could question the exact transfer of the file, name date etc.), as a receip and as a legal document. Fourth, it is anyway dangerous to send a package of material labled as "whole documentation", because this kind of lable may become intrinsically objectionable. If I say "I send you three files with these names" instead, the content is less objectionable.
).
