Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli wrote this a day or so ago
"Anyway the point is responding your lie, your allegation, which you know is false, about me "implying Guede was Knox's pimp"....
What I claim is that - given that we have already proof beyond doubt that all three are guilty and were in the house - it is perfectly normal to reasonably assume that Guede and Amanda were at home to have some drug-fuelled sex together that night."
He should be pleased that an American based forum allows him to make these obscenely defamatory statements, while you should be disappointed the same forum apparently now requires you to tiptoe somewhat.

Aside from the defamatory nature of what Machiavelli posted, the underlined part is proof that Machiavelli rejects the Massei motivations report.

Massei does not have the crime as being committed that way. Maybe Mignini did, but Machiavelli has now committed in writing that this is how he sees it.

I am, one again, saving this off-line. There will be a time when I remind Machiavelli that he said that it is perfectly "normal" to assume that Guede and Amanda were at "home" to have some drug-fueled sex orgy, and he will deny he ever said it.

 

[acbytesla]

My point wasn't so much that the 4-way sex-game-gone-wrong scenario is inherently unlikely (of course it is), but that 6 days after first shacking up together, we're supposed to think that Amanda and Raff needed to look around for extra excitement. It just doesn't carry any believability.

No, I agree with that...but then again, they were college kids. One never knows about other's sexual habits.

Still I agree with you because they "coupled" up. It didn't seem like simple casual sex. They spent every moment they could together that week.

 

[Machiavelli]

First of all, M., there's no indication at all, except for your confirmation bias, that Knox was talking about Guede.

Second of all, your evaluation of this makes no sense.

The fact that he is a black person she met in a bar next to the University for Foreigneers is an indication itself. The fact that she didn't reveal the man's name, and that he is unknown by this day, it's another indication.

If you think you could meet plenty of black young men living in Perugia attending places around Via Garibaldi, you don't know what you are talking about. It would be like saying you can meet many neighbours down in the courtyard.
All these men would be just known by everyone, their names known to everyone.

The mentioning of a black man in Knox's diary is certainly an indication.
But all this matters little to the point: the compatibility argument is a reality check. It is something that comes after my assessment that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of Knox's implication.
If you assume the starting point that there is evidence, it is obvious and normal to hypothesize scenarios, and to check if the scenarios are plausible, based of elements of reality. And the check says Knox meeting Guede to have sex at her home is just a plausible scenario, based on indicative elements.

 

[Machiavelli]

Aside from the defamatory nature of what Machiavelli posted, the underlined part is proof that Machiavelli rejects the Massei motivations report.

Massei does not have the crime as being committed that way. Maybe Mignini did, but Machiavelli has now committed in writing that this is how he sees it.

I am, one again, saving this off-line. There will be a time when I remind Machiavelli that he said that it is perfectly "normal" to assume that Guede and Amanda were at "home" to have some drug-fueled sex orgy, and he will deny he ever said it.

Actually, I denied that Massei ever stated that this did not happen.

The problem is that you go on confusing surrounding scenarios with the crime.

It is not a crime to have a drug-fueled sex orgy involving Guede at home. And this speculation is irrelevant as evidence about the crime, from the point of view of a judge.
The purpose of this speculation, its relevance from my point of view, is just to show that you (Bill Williams) were lying when you maintained that I implied that Guede was Knox's pimp. So I actually explain that I have theory about a sexual meeting between Guede and Knox, which is incompatible with the idea tha Guede could be Knox's pimp. The idea that Guede was Knox's pimp was alwyais your idea, as well as the idea that Knox was a prostutute; I always maintaned that Knox was not a prostitute (a prostitute does it for money not for fun), and that the idea tha Guede was a pimp was just completely not plausible; so instead I explain you that have a different theory about the sexual meeting between Knox and Guede.

 

[acbytesla]

I thought it would be better (for Amanda's charachter) to suggest she may just felt sexually attracted by Guede, rather than suggesting she was being spiritually and emotionally attracted. Just my opinion.
But if you prefer the second option, it's up to you.

The actual point is, you don't think you can find many black men - 'unnamed' or 'unknown' black men - attending bars around Via Garibaldi, do you?

No, she said the black man was beautiful. That is NONE of that. It's like saying the Grand Canyon was beautiful. It doesn't mean you want a relationship with it or want to screw it.

 

[acbytesla]

The fact that he is a black person she met in a bar next to the University for Foreigneers is an indication itself. The fact that she didn't reveal the man's name, and that he is unknown by this day, it's another indication.

If you think you could meet plenty of black young men living in Perugia attending places around Via Garibaldi, you don't know what you are talking about. It would be like saying you can meet many neighbours down in the courtyard.
All these men would be just known by everyone, their names known to everyone.

The mentioning of a black man in Knox's diary is certainly an indication.
But all this matters little to the point: the compatibility argument is a reality check. It is something that comes after my assessment that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of Knox's implication.
If you assume the starting point that there is evidence, it is obvious and normal to hypothesize scenarios, and to check if the scenarios are plausible, based of elements of reality. And the check says Knox meeting Guede to have sex at her home is just a plausible scenario, based on indicative elements.

There you go again. Talking out another orifice. Virtually NOBODY would say that Rudy was the most beautiful black man that they had ever seen. NOBODY.

Not unless they had never seen any. And while Seattle is not Detroit. Washington DC, Baltimore or Compton, there are still more than enough black men who live here for Amanda to have a frame of reference. Rudy wouldn't make it into the 50th percentile.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, I denied that Massei ever stated that this did not happen.

The problem is that you go on confusing surrounding scenarios with the crime.

It is not a crime to have a drug-fueled sex orgy involving Guede at home. And this speculation is irrelevant as evidence about the crime, from the point of view of a judge.
The purpose of this speculation, its relevance from my point of view, is just to show that you (Bill Williams) were lying when you maintained that I implied that Guede was Knox's pimp. So I actually explain that I have theory about a sexual meeting between Guede and Knox, which is incompatible with the idea tha Guede could be Knox's pimp. The idea that Guede was Knox's pimp was alwyais your idea, as well as the idea that Knox was a prostutute; I always maintaned that Knox was not a prostitute (a prostitute does it for money not for fun), and that the idea tha Guede was a pimp was just completely not plausible; so instead I explain you that have a different theory about the sexual meeting between Knox and Guede.

Well, you said the transaction was sex-for-drugs. But really, Machiavelli, how can anyone take this seriously. First you deny it, then you substitute an equally absurd equivalence.

Once again, I am saving this, because in a couple of weeks you are going to deny you said it - or that you were only saying it as part of an argument of "compatibility", or because you were saying it to deny a former claim I made... which to me, sounds like you made it up to counter something you found hard countering.

Geez, now I'm not making sense. I need a vacation.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, she said the black man was beautiful. That is NONE of that. It's like saying the Grand Canyon was beautiful. It doesn't mean you want a relationship with it or want to screw it.

What Machiavelli is saying is that if you assume that the person admiring the Grand Canyon is also proven to be a murderer, this proves that the Grand Canyon is the (albeit unnamed) accomplice!

I think I am now understanding Machiavelli. I need a vacation!

 

[Strozzi]

The fact that he is a black person she met in a bar next to the University for Foreigneers is an indication itself. The fact that she didn't reveal the man's name, and that he is unknown by this day, it's another indication.

If you think you could meet plenty of black young men living in Perugia attending places around Via Garibaldi, you don't know what you are talking about. It would be like saying you can meet many neighbours down in the courtyard.
All these men would be just known by everyone, their names known to everyone.

The mentioning of a black man in Knox's diary is certainly an indication.
But all this matters little to the point: the compatibility argument is a reality check. It is something that comes after my assessment that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of Knox's implication.
If you assume the starting point that there is evidence, it is obvious and normal to hypothesize scenarios, and to check if the scenarios are plausible, based of elements of reality. And the check says Knox meeting Guede to have sex at her home is just a plausible scenario, based on indicative elements.

Machiavelli believes that it is a certainty that Knox was implicated in (present for and involved in) the killing. It is a "fact", according to Machiavelli. So the rest are just his "connecting the dots" to explain the basis for a relationship and how it came to be that Knox had Guede over to her flat for sex the evening of the murder. Just fantasy and innuendo.

Machiavelli still won't reply to my recent questions asking if his "behavior analysis" methodology also means that the following is possible:
1) That Rudy fits the profile of a burglar who could break into the flat alone?
2) That if a burglar did throw the rock and climb in the window, the burglar would likely be a slender, agile male between 15 and 40 years old like Rudy?
3) That from what is known or suspected of Rudy's other burglaries, when Rudy enters a property he seems to be in no hurry to exit. He takes his time. He makes himself at home, he eats from the kitchen, he might use the bathroom? And he forgets to flush!!!
4) He fits the profile of someone who carries a knife during a burglary and might pull it out and have it in hand ready to use if he felt cornered or vulnerable?

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, I denied that Massei ever stated that this did not happen.

The problem is that you go on confusing surrounding scenarios with the crime.

Then you have not read Massei's report.

Here it is.... just a snippet, because everyone should be encouraged to read it for themselves..... page 392:

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms (the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.
It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.

There`s more. If you take the time to read it. It`s actually a huge waste of time to post this. You`ll now engage in a monumental piece of dietrology to claim that this is not what Massei meant.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli believes that it is a certainty that Knox was implicated in (present for and involved in) the killing. It is a "fact", according to Machiavelli. So the rest are just his "connecting the dots" to explain the basis for a relationship and how it came to be that Knox had Guede over to her flat for sex the evening of the murder. Just fantasy and innuendo.

Machiavelli still won't reply to my recent questions asking if his "behavior analysis" methodology also means that the following is possible:
1) That Rudy fits the profile of a burglar who could break into the flat alone?
2) That if a burglar did throw the rock and climb in the window, the burglar would likely be a slender, agile male between 15 and 40 years old like Rudy?
3) That from what is known or suspected of Rudy's other burglaries, when Rudy enters a property he seems to be in no hurry to exit. He takes his time. He makes himself at home, he eats from the kitchen, he might use the bathroom? And he forgets to flush!!!
4) He fits the profile of someone who carries a knife during a burglary and might pull it out and have it in hand ready to use if he felt cornered or vulnerable?

He also will simply not respond to Dan O.`s questions from about 106 pages ago.....

• Only Rudy could have thrown that rock through Filomenia's window before Meredith came home that night. Nobody is throwing a rock through a window while there is a dead body inside the cottage.
• Rudy acknowledges searching Amanda's sock drawer for the missing money. Problem is that Amanda doesn't have a sock drawer. Rudy was in Laura's room and therefore was alone in the cottage.
• Rudy taking a crap in the Italian girls bathroom says that neither Amanda nor Meredith was there to point him to the bathroom that they were responsible for cleaning.
• The perpetrator of this crime got his hands bloodied and there was not a clean hand in the room to open Meredith's bedroom door from the inside.
• Rudy ripped off Meredith's bra by pulling on the band behind her right shoulder where he left his DNA on the band. This was done after Meredith was fatally stabbed and after Rudy had washed most of the blood off of his hands but not before Meredith had breathed her last.
• Rudy walked out of Meredith's room and to the front door. But Rudy did not get outside at this time. He turned around at the door and stepped back into the living room and stood in front of the couch facing the back room where Meredith lay dying.
• Rudy needed a key to open the front door. He would need to return to the murder room to search for those keys.
• Rudy's DNA is found on the zipper on Meredith's purse.

 

[acbytesla]

Then you have not read Massei's report.

There`s more. If you take the time to read it. It`s actually a huge waste of time to post this. You`ll now engage in a monumental piece of dietrology to claim that this is not what Massei meant.

Thanks Bill for using that word. I had never read it before and had to look it up. Definitely an obscure word....but a good one since it doesn't come up with an actual real dictionary definition through Google.

Still there were plenty of references an I think it is a great word to describe Machiavelli's sophistry. So nice job. Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.

co-opted dietrologia (from the Italian 'dietro' - behind). It is, therefore, the study or analysis of the perceptually invisible, of what lies behind language, events, actions, processes, and behaviours.

WOW!!! Mach's diatribe in a nutshell.

 

[Skind]

The fact that he is a black person she met in a bar next to the University for Foreigneers is an indication itself. The fact that she didn't reveal the man's name, and that he is unknown by this day, it's another indication.

If you think you could meet plenty of black young men living in Perugia attending places around Via Garibaldi, you don't know what you are talking about.

Think about what you're saying.

You're saying it would be strange for her to have met a foreigner right next to a university famed for accepting foreigners, including students from Africa, in a town where over 1 in 100 people are of African origin.

Coming up next - Mach expresses surprise at locating bear faeces in the woods at Bear Mountain.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

This assumption conflicts with the fact that Vecchiotti actually did ask for specific files in her mails (as it is evident even from one e-mail that Charlie Wilkes has). And also conflicts with the facts that is documented that Stefanoni indicated specific files (both in court and in her e-mail), as items that could be included in the submissions, or not.

Your assumption also conflicts with other important things that you should take in account, as for Vecchiotti's tasks. Vecchiotti in fact she is paid to research and verify the existence of materials and records. If something is missing from the folder she is provided, she is anyway responsible to point it out and verify its existence. She is not suposed to "assume" things. In other words, the fact that she may think so does not exonerate her from her duty to verify, as she has to do with any hypotheses she has, her thoughts notwithsanding.

Something else that Vecchiotti also should do, a point which further strengenths the previous one, is take note that Stefanoni declared that the laboratory always performed controls, a declaration which was contained in the file that Vcchiotti used as a legal pape to make other claims.

In addition - and this is another element which is not irreelevant at all - Vecchiotti also should have verified the case file at the prelimiary hearing chanchellery, to see if the negative controls were already there (as the prelimiary judge had recorded). It is evident that she did not do this because when questioned about the negative controls she repeatedely justified herself by refering to things that Stefanoni should send her. She kept saying that she didn't find them because they were not sent. Which implies, she only asked to Stefanoni, she didn't go anywhere else to collect material for her research.

But moreover, it is also obvious that Vecchiotti was not aware about the content of the hearings of Oct. 4 and Oct. 8 2008. She just didn't know that the negative controls were deposited on a hearing. It was obvious from what she said in her questioning that she did not know that the judge ordered further documentation to be deposited, and that such documentation included the negative controls, and that Stefanoni was recorded as she deposited them with the preliminary court. Vecchiotti said that she was hearing this information from the first time from Comodi.

You also should not forget the fact that Vecchiotti failed to record any contradiction between: the transcripts where Stefanoni is recorded saying she deposited the controls (oct 8) or the judge's declaration that they would be put in the case file and when Stefanoni stated she always performed them(oct 8), and tha fact that she may not have found the negativ controls in her researches. Vecchiotti failed to point out such issue in her report, and failed to do so also in her interrogation (until Comodi iformed her that the controls were already in the file).

You also have several other elements against Vecchiotti actually.
For example, in her report she wrote that Stefanoni is nowhere reported to clean her laboratory desk with alcohool, and instead the Oct 4. transcript does report about the cleanings procedures extensively. These omissions are glaring in Vecchiotti's report: it is obvious that she only picks up the "hundreds picograms" quote from the legal paper but she ignores all the rest.
It is also obvious that we have Comodi who says things like "you didn't request them" and "the negative controls are already in the file". You may think that this is not an evidence they are there, but it rises anyway the burden of proof if you want to prove the contrary: you can't just ignore a statement by a magistrate without actually doing anythig to disprove it.

Machiavelli,

You continue to write claims which you have not substantiated. You claim there is documentation showing the negative controls were documented as deposited into the case file on October 8th. Here you also assert Vecchiotti's report is incorrect in that it states Stephanoni "is nowhere reported to clean her laboratory desk with alcohol," yet you state this is found in the October 4th transcript.

It appears to me there is an easy resolution of this: proof. Please show us the transcript from October 4th where this is detailed and please show the records proving the negative controls were deposited in the case file. You previously stated there were supporting documents for these assertions, yet you do not provide them. No one can prove a negative, yet you can easily prove a positive, that something did happen. Why do you not do so?

 

[NancyS]

Actually, I denied that Massei ever stated that this did not happen.

The problem is that you go on confusing surrounding scenarios with the crime.

It is not a crime to have a drug-fueled sex orgy involving Guede at home. And this speculation is irrelevant as evidence about the crime, from the point of view of a judge.
The purpose of this speculation, its relevance from my point of view, is just to show that you (Bill Williams) were lying when you maintained that I implied that Guede was Knox's pimp. So I actually explain that I have theory about a sexual meeting between Guede and Knox, which is incompatible with the idea tha Guede could be Knox's pimp. The idea that Guede was Knox's pimp was alwyais your idea, as well as the idea that Knox was a prostutute; I always maintaned that Knox was not a prostitute (a prostitute does it for money not for fun), and that the idea tha Guede was a pimp was just completely not plausible; so instead I explain you that have a different theory about the sexual meeting between Knox and Guede.

Again it comes down to 'Fifty Shades of Machiavelli'

 

[acbytesla]

Actually, I denied that Massei ever stated that this did not happen.

The problem is that you go on confusing surrounding scenarios with the crime.

It is not a crime to have a drug-fueled sex orgy involving Guede at home. And this speculation is irrelevant as evidence about the crime, from the point of view of a judge.
The purpose of this speculation, its relevance from my point of view, is just to show that you (Bill Williams) were lying when you maintained that I implied that Guede was Knox's pimp. So I actually explain that I have theory about a sexual meeting between Guede and Knox, which is incompatible with the idea tha Guede could be Knox's pimp. The idea that Guede was Knox's pimp was alwyais your idea, as well as the idea that Knox was a prostutute; I always maintaned that Knox was not a prostitute (a prostitute does it for money not for fun), and that the idea tha Guede was a pimp was just completely not plausible; so instead I explain you that have a different theory about the sexual meeting between Knox and Guede.

Again it comes down to 'Fifty Shades of Machiavelli'

No wonder the word Innuendo has latin origins.

innuendo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innuendo
An innuendo is an insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion.

In the latter sense the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent.

I give you Machiavelli's posts

 

[Diocletus]

It is also obvious that we have Comodi who says things like "you didn't request them" and "the negative controls are already in the file". You may think that this is not an evidence they are there, but it rises anyway the burden of proof if you want to prove the contrary: you can't just ignore a statement by a magistrate without actually doing anythig to disprove it.

So much cyber-ink wasted justifying the the Italian justice system's decision to deny defendants access to the scientific records that are being used to try to put them in jail. No other justice system, that possesses such equipment, would deny disclosure to the defendants. Just produce the records, it's not too late.

Anyway, this argument about Comodi is nonsense. Whatever she says, she bears the burden of proving. The defendants cannot prove a negative.

Anyway, it's obvious what happened. Stefanoni brought to court on 2009 something that she claimed were controls for 36b. But, she kept them instead of putting them in the court file.

Comodi in 2011 falsely claimed that these alleged 36b controls were in the file. When challenged to locate them, she could not because they were not in the file, because Stefanoni had kept them to herself. Moreover, the codes on the records that Stefanoni was again offering did not match the 36b codes, which means that Stefanoni was offering bogus evidence in 2009 and 2011.

So, it appears that both Comodi and Stefanoni have committed a fraud on the court. The controls are being hidden.

 

[Diocletus]

Actually, I denied that Massei ever stated that this did not happen.

The problem is that you go on confusing surrounding scenarios with the crime.

It is not a crime to have a drug-fueled sex orgy involving Guede at home. And this speculation is irrelevant as evidence about the crime, from the point of view of a judge.
The purpose of this speculation, its relevance from my point of view, is just to show that you (Bill Williams) were lying when you maintained that I implied that Guede was Knox's pimp. So I actually explain that I have theory about a sexual meeting between Guede and Knox, which is incompatible with the idea tha Guede could be Knox's pimp. The idea that Guede was Knox's pimp was alwyais your idea, as well as the idea that Knox was a prostutute; I always maintaned that Knox was not a prostitute (a prostitute does it for money not for fun), and that the idea tha Guede was a pimp was just completely not plausible; so instead I explain you that have a different theory about the sexual meeting between Knox and Guede.

This whole line of argument is low class. In fact, the entire prosecution of Amanda Knox is low class. Perugia seems to be the Italian equivalent of a trailer park.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, I denied that Massei ever stated that this did not happen.

The problem is that you go on confusing surrounding scenarios with the crime.

It is not a crime to have a drug-fueled sex orgy involving Guede at home. And this speculation is irrelevant as evidence about the crime, from the point of view of a judge.
The purpose of this speculation, its relevance from my point of view, is just to show that you (Bill Williams) were lying when you maintained that I implied that Guede was Knox's pimp. So I actually explain that I have theory about a sexual meeting between Guede and Knox, which is incompatible with the idea tha Guede could be Knox's pimp. The idea that Guede was Knox's pimp was alwyais your idea, as well as the idea that Knox was a prostutute; I always maintaned that Knox was not a prostitute (a prostitute does it for money not for fun), and that the idea tha Guede was a pimp was just completely not plausible; so instead I explain you that have a different theory about the sexual meeting between Knox and Guede.

This whole line of argument is low class. In fact, the entire prosecution of Amanda Knox is low class. Perugia seems to be the Italian equivalent of a trailer park.

So let's summarize. Machiavelli is using "speculation" to prove I am lying.

But also, the fact that Machiavelli "has a theory" about a sexual meeting between Guede and Knox... and this theory also "proves" I am lying. Machiavelli's theory "is incompatible with the idea tha Guede could be Knox's pimp".

Theory is proof?

This is nice work if you can get it.

 

[Kaosium]

This assumption conflicts with the fact that Vecchiotti actually did ask for specific files in her mails (as it is evident even from one e-mail that Charlie Wilkes has). And also conflicts with the facts that is documented that Stefanoni indicated specific files (both in court and in her e-mail), as items that could be included in the submissions, or not.

Well, from what I posted already we can divine that Vecchiotti required an electropherogram that included the peak area data in addition to the peak height data like on the one she originally sent. However this omission by Stefanoni and Vecchiotti having to specifically ask for one with the peak area data included doesn't imply that Vecchiotti should have had to specifically request every little thing regarding the data for the work she was evaluating, especially something as necessary to the evaluation of the work as the negative controls.

Your assumption also conflicts with other important things that you should take in account, as for Vecchiotti's tasks. Vecchiotti in fact she is paid to research and verify the existence of materials and records. If something is missing from the folder she is provided, she is anyway responsible to point it out and verify its existence. She is not supposed to "assume" things. In other words, the fact that she may think so does not exonerate her from her duty to verify, as she has to do with any hypotheses she has, her thoughts notwithstanding.

She was paid (along with Conti) to test the knife and evaluate the work of Stafanoni, not chase down all the records necessary to do so.

Something else that Vecchiotti also should do, a point which further strengenths the previous one, is take note that Stefanoni declared that the laboratory always performed controls, a declaration which was contained in the file that Vcchiotti used as a legal pape to make other claims.

Stefanoni claimed she and the police followed all sorts of procedures even a cursory glance at the crime scene videos proves they did not, such as regularly change their gloves. C&V made a demonstration of that in court as you'll recall. Merely because Stefanoni (or Comodi) asserted something in court is no reason for C&V to assume it was true, especially them having evidence of it not being true.

In addition - and this is another element which is not irreelevant at all - Vecchiotti also should have verified the case file at the prelimiary hearing chanchellery, to see if the negative controls were already there (as the prelimiary judge had recorded). It is evident that she did not do this because when questioned about the negative controls she repeatedely justified herself by refering to things that Stefanoni should send her. She kept saying that she didn't find them because they were not sent. Which implies, she only asked to Stefanoni, she didn't go anywhere else to collect material for her research.

She went straight to the source, the person who had all the files and whose work was being evaluated. Being as they were (in part) commissioned to evaluate Stefanoni's technical report they had the data they needed from the RTIGF, if Stefanoni failed to include something there and didn't bring it to C&V's attention that it was included at another time despite being asked for all files relevant to the tests Stefanoni performed then the omission is on Stefanoni, not them.

But moreover, it is also obvious that Vecchiotti was not aware about the content of the hearings of Oct. 4 and Oct. 8 2008. She just didn't know that the negative controls were deposited on a hearing. It was obvious from what she said in her questioning that she did not know that the judge ordered further documentation to be deposited, and that such documentation included the negative controls, and that Stefanoni was recorded as she deposited them with the preliminary court. Vecchiotti said that she was hearing this information from the first time from Comodi.

Yes, she ought to have been quite surprised if there was material outstanding that wasn't in the RTIGF and wasn't included by Stefanoni when she was asked for the files relevant to the tests.

You also should not forget the fact that Vecchiotti failed to record any contradiction between: the transcripts where Stefanoni is recorded saying she deposited the controls (oct 8) or the judge's declaration that they would be put in the case file and when Stefanoni stated she always performed them(oct 8), and the fact that she may not have found the negative controls in her researches. Vecchiotti failed to point out such issue in her report, and failed to do so also in her interrogation (until Comodi iformed her that the controls were already in the file).

Perhaps this is because C&V weren't commissioned to take Stefanoni at her word but to evaluate the work she did, and having been exposed to it realized that simply because Stefanoni said something in court didn't mean it was true? A perusal of this page (amongst others!) shows where they'd discovered this about Stefanoni and her work.

I especially like:

From this, it can be inferred that what is reported on page 78 of the RTIGF (and confirmed in the GUP questioning, page 178, where it is claimed that quantification was performed using Real Time and that quantification of the Y [chromosome] was not carried out) is not consistent with what was performed in reality.

(emphasis retained)

You also have several other elements against Vecchiotti actually.
For example, in her report she wrote that Stefanoni is nowhere reported to clean her laboratory desk with alcohool, and instead the Oct 4. transcript does report about the cleanings procedures extensively. These omissions are glaring in Vecchiotti's report: it is obvious that she only picks up the "hundreds picograms" quote from the legal paper but she ignores all the rest.
It is also obvious that we have Comodi who says things like "you didn't request them" and "the negative controls are already in the file". You may think that this is not an evidence they are there, but it rises anyway the burden of proof if you want to prove the contrary: you can't just ignore a statement by a magistrate without actually doing anything to disprove it.

To my knowledge there is no proof anywhere that Stefanoni ever submitted the negative controls. We know that Comodi claimed they were on record, but when she attempted to find them she couldn't and produced a record that wasn't compatible with the other records.

All of this is silly anyway, all Stefanoni had to do if her work was valid was cough up the EDFs like C&V did and the Carabinieri were recently reported to have done so for their work. There's no legitimate reason for her to withhold that information, nor play these silly games of what the independent court experts 'specifically' asked for and did not, or whether those files were on record when the 'magistrate' herself could not find them.