Which was when, July 30th 2009 for a trial that was nearly over and had started officially in October or so of 2008? Incidentally, last time we went at this you claimed that those records were generally not made available in Italian trials, thus when Stefanoni wrote the RTIGF, supposedly a comprehensive account of the forensic work done, and failed to mention that they tested negative for blood she would have had the expectation the TMB negatives she omitted would never see the light of day.
As for the trial documentation: I said that the data requested to Stefanoni are not included in the trial files. I think I used the expression "included/deposited in investigation file" or included in technical reports. And I mean specifically the SAL, egrams and raw data.
This that I state could be theoretically verifiable, because Stefanoni herself states - before Micheli - that she would never include this documentation in the file, in any case. If you decide to make a research in documentation from other cases (prior to 2008) you might find out that what I report is true.
Hence, nothing was hidden.
That is without doubt a lie of omission.
Whithout doubt, it is not. (your interpretation of it as a 'lie' would be irrelevant anyway, this must be said; and bear in mind that TMB test results themselves are logically irrelevant).
There are other omissions in her technical report, some of which are irrelevant. But let's look at the point.
To me, it is not, because, 1) the test themselves were accessible to the defence experts (they were summoned to attend the tests).
Because 2) it was Stefanoni herself who provided the documentation about TMB tests; if you assume she intended to falsify the data, then why didn't she fabricate fake positive records, or why didn't she just withhold them or destroy them? Stefanoni's offering documentation of negative results is inconsistent with a theory of an alleged intent to conceal such data. She did not "had the expectation" as you say, because she provided them. Then it is not a deception also because 3) she had testified about having performed the TMB tests, she talked about them even before depositing her RTIGF with Massei's court, she said tests were performed and answered all questions thorughly with no problem.
Your entire argument is reduced to complaining that Stefanoni did not write down about the TMB tests in the technical report she provided to the defence on the preliminary investigation phase. I have my theory about why this information was not included at the early stage, and I found this to be totally insufficient as to object to Stefanoni's work.
It is also false to assert that Stefanoni declared she ever found the luminol footprints were in blood for sure. She acually declared something opposite to that:
Stefanoni 2009 may 22. p. 83 said:
La campionatura denominata L1 nel verbale di sopralluogo è vittima, quindi non si può dire se è sangue con certezza, naturalmente, perché è luminescente al luminol ma non… appunto avendo il luminol altre possibilità di fluorescenza possiamo soltanto dire profilo genetico della vittima...
In such passages Stefanoni points out that luminol is only presumptive and she can't say it's blood.
Furthermore, last time we went at this I knew I was forgetting something regarding what was said in court about the blood tests. I thought maybe it was someone else who'd claimed no other blood tests were done, instead of Stefanoni, which was why it could be claimed with a straight face she hadn't 'lied' about it in court. That wasn't it though.
It was something else, and your recent posts reminded me of it: you used to make the argument that a TMB test wasn't officially a blood test being as it wasn't a confirmatory test, thus when it was said in court that no other blood tests were done (outside the luminol which is also a presumptive and not confirmatory test) it wasn't 'technically' a lie.
Yes, that's a lie too.
As far as I know, what you find in Stefanoni's testimony is: Ghirga asks some questions that are clearly only about the specific confirmatory test for blood (pages 58-59 of May 23.) it is very clear that these questions are only abot confirmatory tests; Maori asks whether other tests were performed on a specific spot on the corridoor floor adjacent to the bathroom door, and Stefanoni answered they only sprayed luminol there (p. 148 may 23.); Maori asks about TMB tests on the bra clasp (p. 159). I am not aware about other questions and answers on the point, but I may have missed them.
