Well, actually it does imply that Vecchiotti went into the merit of which single file she wanted to have. She wrote a mail (maybe more than one) not to just request “all the existing documentation” in generic terms, but to request single files. It seems to me there is a little contradiction in your statement above, when you talk about specifically requesting “every little thing” and “especially something as necessary to the evaluation of the work”.
The apparent contradiction is between “little thing” and “something as necessary…” . It’s a bit jarring isn’t it? If something is absolutely necessary to her work, it’s not a “little thing”.
Which makes its omission by Stefanoni downright
curious, doesn't it?
However Professors Conti and Vecchiotti spent more than a hundred pages evaluating Stefanoni's work and then detailing their reasons why Stefanoni's work was unreliable, there's nothing the negative controls would have done to validate that work, in fact they don't even get a mention in the conclusions and would only have impacted (partially) on
one of the reasons given in the conclusions for the work being unreliable.
What you're missing is that Stefanoni's work was so far gone the negative controls couldn't have saved it; they had all the information they needed to determine that work was unreliable and Stefanoni's omission becomes a
curiosity that they
noted.
If Vechiotti sends a second and third e-mail in order to request some specific file which she indicates, on the ground that that specific file is necessary to her work, this logically implies she could well request a second or a third file, in the same e-mail.
But she didn’t.
You seem to set the issue as if the problem was whether Vecchiotti “had to” specifically ask things. But the problem is not if she ‘had to’. The problem actually is that Vecchiotti could request something which she (and you) define as absolutely necessary to complete her work, she could do that, and she didn’t.
If something is absolutely necessary, you can request it, and you don’t request it (or don’t make any attempt to obtain it) it’s an indefensible position.
Compare her position to that of a doctor (which in fact she is): if you can do something, you have to. And if you can do and you don’t do, you are at fault.
Conti and Vecchiotti didn't
need the negative controls to determine Stefanoni's work was invalid; Stefanoni needed to prove to them that it
was valid and one of the
required elements of that proof was the negative controls.
Then she answered that Stefanoni was cooperative and send all material that she requested.
Then let us see that transcript. What you have is a
report of her appearance before the court in May '11 asking for an extension to complete their work and saying something to the effect of 'the
Polizia Scientifica promised to be cooperative,' what I want is the words around that statement so I can see just what might have been meant by that.
We do know in June of '11 her report would be completed and it would include the quote I originally cited regarding them having not been sent the negative controls.
I'm afraid you're wrong. In fact, she was paid exactly for seeking out herself all documentation that could be necessary to her analysis. She is a court appointed expert. She is appointed for dealing with courts documentation in the first place. She was granted unfettered access to the records.
But she didn’t access them. Apparently, she complained that someone else didn’t tell her what was in the case file.
Here is their court-ordered
assignment:
C&V said:
On January 22, 2011, the undersigned Prof. Stefano Conti and Prof. Carla Vecchiotti, Specialists in Forensic Medicine employed in the Forensic Medicine Section of the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences of the Univeristy of Rome – La Sapienza, were appointed by Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann of the Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia, Criminal Section, to conduct laboratory investigations relative to criminal case no. 10/2010 R.G. in order to provide answers to the following inquiries:
“Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:
”whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification“
“if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination.”
As it was necessary to conduct investigations outside of the presence of the Office [i.e. Court], 90 days were allotted, with a subsequent extension, for the submission of the expert report.
It is apparent from their report that they examined the record, they repeatedly quote from the RTIGF and Stefanoni's testimony in court, both from the Massei Court and her appearance before the GUP. They went to Stefanoni and asked for all files related to her tests. The negative controls were not found in that record nor was Comodi able to produce them given the opportunity, and
it didn't really matter at that juncture to their analysis, not even a clean set of negative controls would have made that work valid, the omission of them is
curious which is perhaps why they
noted it in their report, but they did not
rely on it for their conclusions.
What is interesting is that Stefanoni would be asked for the records pertaining to the tests and not include them, not that the absence of the negative controls was fundamental to their analysis. Stefanoni's...
naughtiness...was far more sublime than Jacqueline Blake's.
Try to follow me: they cannot assume it is false, either. Certainly not prior to reporting about it, and not without reporting about their own verification activity on the topic.
They didn't assume anything, they just noted that Stefanoni hadn't produced the negative controls when asked for the 'files pertaining to the tests.' They were then surprised to hear Comodi claim they were already in the record, and probably amused when she couldn't find them either and tried to pass off records that didn't match. However as Hellmann pointed out
it didn't really matter at that point.
Btw (this is incidental): indeed C&V played a video (which was already known to the judges), but this video did not prove that something said by Stefanoni was a lie. In fact the only purpose of the video was to show a dirty glove. Which was already photographed and seen by the first instance trial judges.
I was not just referring to that, I was alluding to their presentation in court where they read from the police manuals and then ran the crime scene videos showing the
Polizia Scientifica (or the ersatz 'second team' I call the 'Clowns in Bunny Suits') breaking the rules the manuals set forth.
I’m sorry but this argument is totally flawed. In reality the only person responsible for Vecchiotti’s documentation is Vecchiotti herself.
By going to a “direct source” she doesn’t have a power to “transfer” any responsibility to Stefanoni. She (and Conti) are the only ones responsible for ensuring that all steps are taken order to obtain the complete documentation they need, insofar as they deem it necessary to their work.
If Vecchiotti and Conti deem something is necessary, and don’t take a step to obtain it, they are at fault. And Stefanoni bears no responsibility for such fault, regardless if Stefanoni’s cooperation performance is good or bad.
Stefanoni was not appointed by the judge. Stefanoni had no obligation, except complying with Vecchiotti’s requests, and bears no responsability about the adequacy of Vecchiotti and Conti's documentation. If Vecchiotti’s requests turn out to be incomplete and inadequate, their responsibility is out of discussion.
Here are their
conclusions:
C&V Conclusions said:
Conclusions (2)
Based on the considerations explained above, we are able to respond as follows to the inquiries posed at the assignment hearing:
“Having examined the record and conducted such technical investigations as shall be necessary, the Expert Panel shall ascertain:
1. whether it is possible, by means of a new technical analysis, to identify the DNA present on items 165b (bra clasp) and 36 (knife), and to determine the reliability of any such identification“
- The tests that we conducted to determine the presence of blood on item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps) yielded a negative result.
- The cytomorphological tests on the items did not reveal the presence of cellular material. Some samples of item 36 (knife), in particular sample “H”, present granules with a circular/hexagonal characteristic morphology with a cental radial structure. A more detailed microscopic study, together with the consultation of data in the literature, allowed us to ascertain that the structures in question are attributable to granules of starch, thus matter of a vegetable nature.
- The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA.
- In view of the absence of DNA in the extracts that we obtained, with the agreement of the consultants for the parties, we did not proceed to the subsequent amplification step.
2. “if it is not possible to carry out a new technical analysis, shall evaluate, on the basis of the record, the degree of reliability of the genetic analysis performed by the Scientific Police on the aforementioned items, including with respect to possible contamination.“
Having examined the record and the relevant documents, we are able to report the following conclusions regarding the laboratory analyses performed on Item 36 (knife) and Item 165B (bra clasps):
ITEM 36 (KNIFE)
Relative to the genetic analysis performed on trace A (handle of the knife), we agree with the conclusion reached by the Technical Consultant regarding the attribution of the genetic profile obtained from these samples to Amanda Marie Knox.
Relative to trace B (blade of the knife) we find that the technical analyses performed are not reliable for the following reasons:
1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms that trace B (blade of knife) is the product of blood.
2. The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.
3. Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis;
4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed;
5. It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.
ITEM 165B (BRA CLASPS)
Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:
1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;
2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;
3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;
4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;
5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.
THE EXPERTS
Prof. Carla Vecchiotti
Prof. Stefano Conti
A clean set of negative controls would not overturn a single one of those conclusions and only partially mitigate the last concerns.
The issue with the negative controls is not that it was vital to their analysis but it's evidence of how Stefanoni was not forthcoming when they asked her for the 'files pertaining to the tests' and they were not sent. Stefanoni and/or Comodi claiming they'd already produced them and they were somewhere in the voluminous case file (but not the RTIGF!) but couldn't find them there either merely illustrates that!
She ought to know what was in the preliminary hearing transcripts, since she included them in her reference documentation and quoted the mas legal papers.
But she didn’t know them.
Vecchiotti fails to mention key information from the preliminary hearing. She could have taken it and challenged it. In fact, she did challenge something, but just one cherry picked element (which maybe she was fed directly by the defence, since, by coincidence, it’s exactly the same one quoted in the defence submissions).
Had she actually read the transcripts and searched the files, she could have challenged the negative controls pointing out the contradiction.
But she didn’t.
If you download
this PDF version of the Conti-Vecchiotti Report and then use the 'find' tool you'll see that C&V quoted from the transcripts of the October 4th, 2008 GUP hearing from page 178, (numerous times! Guess why!) 21-22, (again multiple times--guess why!) 20, 72, 102 and 100-101, which belies the contention they just 'challenged one cherry-picked element.' Naturally, of course, the fact that Stefanoni misrepresented the amount of DNA she'd quantified and claimed to have gotten that reading from the Real Time PCR process when that was demonstrably not true and in fact she'd never quantified that sample at all (and didn't do Real Time PCR with that sample thus couldn't have quantified it that way) received a great deal of attention from them, as it obviously had from the defense.
However, regardless of whether Stefanoni claimed to have deposited the negative controls at that hearing (do you have a cite for this BTW?) what she definitely
didn't do is include them with the electropherograms she sent C&V which is
specifically 
)) what was stated in their report, which I re-quote
now:
C&V said:
In addition, it must be noted that neither the negative control – which, as previously mentioned, could have indicated the presence of possible contamination – nor the positive control, which would have allowed the effectiveness of the selected experimental conditions to be monitored, are present in the electropherograms produced.
(emphasis retained)
Vecchiotti didn’t mention and didn’t challenge the records. She did not do anything to verify them. She simply ignored them.
They were not commissioned to take Stefanoni at her word, but they neither can ignore her – and they cannot ignore the transcripts. What C&V did was to ignore some things, they refused to dispute them and just assumed something else without verification, and they cherry pick and ‘challenged’ openly only some other few of them. In other words, the mentioned and disputed only the claims that they could dispute, while they ignored the claims that they didn’t want to actually find out.
Whether Stefanoni had entered those files into the record or not, what she didn't do was include them when C&V asked for the files pertaining to the tests, which is what they said in their report.
To my knowledge, judge Pratillo Hellmann refused to accept them, on the reason that “contamination could have occurred outside the laboratory”.
Contamination could have occurred inside the laboratory as well even if the negative controls were perfectly clean. The records produced didn't match the numbers of the other files in the case, which a judge noticed. What Hellmann pointed out was it didn't even
matter at that juncture to the validity of Stefanoni's work.
The proof that Stefanoni submitted the negative controls is actually a secondary issue. What matters instead, the real problem with Vecchiotti and Conti, is that they made no attempt to verify whethr the negative controls were submitted, if they were there, if they were iin the file; and even if they were elsewhere.
As I've posted, the absence of the negative controls wasn't even relevant to their conclusions, what's
damned curious is that Stefanoni would respond to a request for 'the files pertaining to the tests' and
not include them. It goes very much to the question of just how forthcoming Stefanoni was if in replying to that request she didn't produce items necessary to validate her work and (at best) expected them to hunt through tens of thousands of papers or ask her specifically for them.
C&V did no attempt to verify and this is the only, actually sufficient, question that matters to their credibility. Comodi said that the negative controls were deposited, she may be wrong but the word of a magistrate puts the burden of proof on those who want to disprove it, Stefanoni deglared she always performed negative controls (and btw it would be just unrealistic and not credible to assume the contrary) this witness statement also put a burden of proof on anyone who wishes to dispute it; but anyway, the question of where the negative are is secondary to the point of C&Vs’ credibility: they only should have attempted to verify their existence, to verify the court files, and they did nothing. This blows down C&V no matter who or what Comodi and Stefanoni are or did.
Their credibility does not hinge on the negative controls in the slightest, however this does demonstrate just how egregiously Stefanoni and Comodi obfuscated in this case.
)
