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

[RandyN]

The clues were right there in front of the police yet they refused to look. So many of the PGP talk about how little was taken. That's because burglary was a secondary motive.

Rudy clearly wasn't an ordinary burglar and fell into that dangerous subgroup. The clues are in all the burglaries that Rudy probably committed that we know. The simple fact that Rudy was "surprised" during two of them. Christian Tremantano and the nursery in Milan. I believe that there his neighbor which he also committed arson showed evidence of the burglar eating from the kitchen as well.

Rudy has all the signs of being a budding dangerous sexual predator.

Presumptuous....the Italian Supreme Court would demand that you consider love of anyone Guede may attack sexually. Italy is quite clear on this. That and did she have on tight jeans.

That chit would be funny if not for being so sadly stupidly true.

 

[JREF2010]

Yes, guessed correctly then. Not her police interrogation then. They should correct that.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/17/meredith-kercher-knox-sollecito-family-murdered

I listened to it and it appears Mignini's budget cut for interrogation recording was lifted by Dec 17. ...or he was lying about budget cuts being the reason they didnt record the Nov 5-6 interrogation.

At least by Dec 17, Amanda wasnt charged with 12 more years of prison, for mentioning Patricks name and speaking of being slapped.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

extraction buffer

Thank you for answering my questions regarding the bra clasp.

I assume Dr. Stefanoni used a moistened sterile material to separately swab both the fabric portion and the 2 metal hooks to collect DNA for testing. Does anyone know if her swab material would have transferred that much moisture to the fabric and metal hooks that they would not air dry but instead deteriorate?

Strozzi,

Dr. Vecchiotti's article last year (in Frontiers in Genetics) indicated that there was extraction buffer (I posted a recipe in a previous thread) in the tube in which the clasp was stored. "It could not be analyzed by the Appellate Court experts as it had been stored by the scientific police in a tube containing extraction buffer, which made it completely rusty." This is beyond feckless.

 

[Desert Fox]

Presumptuous....the Italian Supreme Court would demand that you consider love of anyone Guede may attack sexually. Italy is quite clear on this. That and did she have on tight jeans.

That chit would be funny if not for being so sadly stupidly true.

I do really wish I had the case you mention handy when I was discussing it on another forum. If anybody ever brings up the Italian Supreme Court as an argument elsewhere, I plan to sling that back to them.

 

[RWVBWL]

Perugia Shock reporting on The Hellmann Trial

Machiavelli,

If she really had deposited the controls, then where are they? Dr. Hampikian surely understands their importance. Many people who have taken an interest in the case and asked for material from the defense also understand their importance. Anyone who asks us to believe that the negative controls were deposited is implying that both defense teams somehow overlooked them. Does that make the slightest sense?

If Stefanoni really did deposit them, then in what form were they? The most useful form would be as electronic data files, not final egrams. Even if Stefanoni did deposit them as egrams but not as EDFs, then she disregarded the near universal standards regarding DNA profiling.

Lets not forget the little (two actually) instances when Comodi and Stefanoni were caught trying to sneak fake control data sheets into the trial records. The first time a citizen judge (juror) caught the errant sheets buried in the days files. Hellmann stopped the trial and gave the prosecution some amount of time to produce the correct sheets if they were in the case files already as they claimed. The prosecution failed to find and produce these data sheets.

Later in an end run Comodi tried once again to introduce another set of incorrect control data sheets which IIRC she claimed to have found in a garage somewhere, but Hellmann would have none of it. She got a tongue lashing...but nothing more.

In a normal court if a judge came up against this suspect behavior from a prosecutor or witnesses I suspect all hell would be raised and abusers would be fined, put into jail and have professional licenses put up to question.

Comodi simply went outside...fired up a cigarette and complained to Nick Pisa that the case was lost because the judge was favoring the defense. To which he quoted her somewhere in one of his less than Pulitzer quality pieces IIRC.

So not only did they not produce control data but they were caught attempting to introduce some sort of forged or incorrect data....which takes this to a whole other level than simply withholding data would have it at. This information has to be in the case files or transcripts and should be easily verifiable.
I recall Hellmann admonishing Comodi the second time about the fact that any control data she now produced could never disprove contamination before the testing actually took place...or something along those lines.

Pretty sure Frank wrote about this in the now banned Perugia Shock.

Hi RandyN and others,
Here's some PS for ya:

Having failed the card of the ‘of course’, Comodi/Stefanoni pulled the ace out of their sleeve: the documentation of the negative/positive controls exist! It was delivered to the pre-trial hearing of October 8 2008! (According to them…)

So, Comodi gave to President Helmann two photocopies that document the controls.
The only problem is that Vecchiotti looked at the two pieces of paper and saw they had a different code from the one of the tests made on knife and clasp. Not only that: the codes on the fotocopies were almost unreadable.
Hellman and Zanetti wanted to go look for the proof that the documents had been really filed on October 2008 anyway. But after almost an hour of searching, they couldn’t find anything!

So Hellmann returned into the courtroom and decided not to admit that presumed proof that the controls were done.
Comodi insisted. And here, surprise: not only Helmann said definitely NO, but he pointed out that even if the documentation existed, even if it was really filed on October 8 2008, even if it was perfect, even if the negative/positive controls were done, that wouldn’t have ANY importance, since the contamination could have still occurred before!

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110924042446/http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/30/hellmann-says-no/


Here's some links that I just found from the 2nd Generation of Perugia Shock back in 2011,
hosted by WordPress, after Mignini's Google Blogspot shutdown,
when the Hellmann Court set Amanda and Raffaele FREE!
Enjoy!

http://web.archive.org/web/20111001061634/http://perugiashock.com/

http://web.archive.org/web/20111002085959/http://perugiashock.com/page/2/

http://web.archive.org/web/20111001000714/http://perugiashock.com/page/3/

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes, but how did she smell? It is time to address the skunkazz rumors.

She is always clean and well-groomed, at least, whenever I have seen her.

She looked really good yesterday. Her complexion looks good. She looks like someone who is getting regular exercise and living a healthy lifestyle, and it's not visibly obvious that she has this burden weighing her down.

The court system dealt her a body blow, but I have the impression she has gained a lot of her confidence back.

She's coping, and she's coping well. That doesn't make any of this OK.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Can someone in the UK record and figure out a way to upload this BBC program that is slated to air tomorrow night?

 

[davefoc]

[text and links above]

Machiavelli has claimed numerous times that the Stefanoni provided all relevant documentation with regard to the DNA testing. The information in RWVBWL's post seems to contradict Machiavelli's claim.

This seems like an issue where Machiavelli is either right or wrong and the information to determine that is in the Hellman transcripts. Could Machiavelli review the claims presented here and the documentation and see if he agrees that Stefanoni did not present evidence of the control tests requested during the Hellman trial.?

If Machiavelli's claim is that Stefanoni eventually provided the requested documentation could he provide the evidence that leads him to believe that?

 

[anglolawyer]

snip
Actually, it's true I do happen to know details, and when I see reported some factually wrong detail about legal settings or falely reported statements from Italian, I object to them an explain how they actually are. I do this because this is probaly the only useful function I can have on this forum: to correct false information.
Snip

I agree, Mach. You do seem to know some interrsting stuff, like Mignini turning up at 2.00 a.m. after some REM sleep.

Do you know these details:

1. after his arrest in the early morning of 6th November, was Patrick's apartment sealed as a crime scene and, if so
   
2. were any knives and, if so, how many, or clothes and, if so, what, taken from his place for testing?

Thanks in advance.

 

[anglolawyer]

She has a lot going for her.

She has the truth on her side.

She is cheerful by nature. She doesn't freak out, and she looks for ways to make the best of whatever her situation is.

She is very intelligent, she listens carefully, she takes a thoughtful approach to problems, and she learns from experience.

She has an exceptional family, and she has chosen good friends. Her friend Madison is a huge asset for her. Madison is very smart, articulate, and has an abundance of common sense. And Madison is fiercely loyal to Amanda... which leads to my final observation:

Amanda inspires fierce loyalty, in many people. We care what happens to her. We care a lot.

I encouraged Amanda to watch The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds, about a kid who manages to forge ahead and keep herself on an even keel despite the chaos surrounding her. Amanda really is quite a bit like the girl in that movie. No one is going to sow bitterness in her heart or turn her against the world. But she shouldn't have to deal with this situation at all. She is holding the bag for problems that are not her fault, and of course it affects her and casts a dark shadow over her life. The fact that she can handle it with a hell of a lot more class than most people doesn't make it right.

Thanks Charlie. Since we are all allowed to form opinions based on photographs, projections etc I can add my at-a-distance six pennorth too FWIW (which ain't much). I think she is a nice person who wouldn't hurt a fly.

ETA I am not comparing my knowledge with yours btw. You know her while I must take place among the Ergons, Peggys and Michaels of this world before pontificating.

 

[Planigale]

Since you insist, I'll try to be very quick.
Follow me.

a. The stomach content argument is a defense argument, which is brought up as evidence - as a certain element of counter-evidence - against an already esptablished set of incriminating evidence. Therefore, it should have a very high quality, a very high standard; it needs to be basically "certain" in order to work.

Surely it also needs to be considered osmotically with all other evidence or are the standards of proof different for defence arguments as opposed to prosecution? Equally (or more) uncertain pieces of evidence are considered by prosecution as part of a holistic whole.

b. About this argument, there are two big problems:

1. the inference is intrinsically imprecise, for multiple reasons. Yes, it is true that in 90% of cases or more stomach empties within 2-2.5 hours, however this is not the totality of cases, and there have been mistakes assessing TOD of up to 12 hours based on stomach contents. This is because the datum suffers of multiple uncertainities, both about the person conditions and about circumstances, and - not irrelevant - even about a true knowledge about time of last meal.
For example, digestion may well be blocked for negative incidental factors. For example, a condition of stress or fear (like a roommate organizing a prank or any other disturbing circumstance like people argueing or smoking or having a threesome in the dining room). It can also suffer a block because of improperly baked house-made bread.

I have previously referenced (in reply to you) scientific papers (e.g. Ann Surg. 1995 Dec;222(6):728-34) showing that stress makes no significant difference to time to stomach emptying. This stress story is a factoid. Unless you can provide evidence to refute the scientific studies I have referenced you need to withdraw this argument. Poorly baked bread does not delay gastric emptying.

Also, the same datum suffers uncertainty about the time at which Meredith actually ate. Because what we have defined in papers is a non-continuous meal starting around 18.30 and finished at about 20.00. The slogan put forward, that as for digestion time the only thing that matters is the time of the first bite, is quite nothing more than that, a slogan. There is no scientific proof that the fact that you go on eating for an hour and a half, this won't delay the emptying of the stomach. Are you sure the ingestion of further food doesn't delay the start of emptying? I'm not sure, actuall nobody is sure about that, and it would be unreasonable to assume that the lenght of the meal does not influence the delay of stomach emptying.
In adition to that, we must say that there is actually no information not even about when Meredith actually gave the "first bite", because some of the English girls remember more or less - very imprecisely and based on inference - about the approximate time when the first entry (pizza) was ready, but all three were doing othr things meanwhile (watching photos etc.) and nodbody knows the actual time when Meredith even begun to eat.

That you are ignorant of a fact, does not make it unknown. It would be a rather narcissistic trait to assume that because something is unknown to you it is unknown to everyone. If we take an insertion of a gastric balloon as a surrogate of having a second meal we see (Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010 Sep;22(9):1016-21, e265-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2010.01525.x. Epub 2010 Jun 1.) a delay of 40min. If we look at variation in how much one eats we can see a change from onset to gastric emptying (mean sem) from 35.6 ± 4.1 min to 80 ± 8.7 min. (Alcohol Alcohol. 2005 May-Jun;40(3):187-93. Epub 2005 Feb 7). So although there is an impact we know the magnitude. I could go on.

(and again, I stress the concept that time of death is not the same thing of the beginning of the aggression, and beginnning of aggression may not be the same time of the time of beginning of the "situation" that lead to the aggression: even the "earliest" non-fatal but just stressfull event might cause emotion and stersss causeing a digestive delay).
The point is that TOD is an irrelevant element itself, because the defenadants have no alibi beyond 20.40. It makes no difference actully, when they killed her, and it may not be possible to know with certainity at what time it happened.

You repeat the fallacy re stress. It is irrelevant to your argument whether the stress began shortly after 21.00 or death occurred then, since there is definite alibi for RS and AK at that time. Also you need to consider RG movements. Excluding his eyewitness report of time of death, his movements also put an upper time limit to events. You also need to consider the broken down car and pick up truck osmotically these result in a very narrow time window.

As I have said I do not know if the Italian system requires a different level of proof for defence vs prosecution. The defence can present a scenario that should be examined osmotically, when doing this it can account for all the evidence. It presents a coherent story. This includes such evidence as complete lack of injuries on AK or RS and lack of evidence of their presence in MK room. The DNA on the bra fastener has no time stamp or place stamp - given that the prosecution destroyed this crucial piece of evidence denying the defence an opportunity to re-examine it this does leave some doubt, and the lack of explanation of how the DNA came to be there; the bra was pulled apart, so there is no reason for the hook to have been touched this uncertainty is exactly the same in form as the uncertainty you argue for with regards to gastric emptying.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, they did not overlook them! They were simply never interested in having them from the beginning, and they did not attempt to have them, they did not even attend the tests.
They did not overlook, they lied; they used them as a pretext. In the courtroom, but above all in the media.
This is what a defence does: they lie, they may build narratives based on pretexts or straw men. It's their job to do so.
The problem is that you buy it, while Italians don't.

"Where are they" is an amusing question, since when Comodi brought them into court from the archives of the preliminary hearing judge's office, they were lend in the hands of Vecchiotti who pretended she was unable to read them, said she needed more time, while the defences rose up and objected saying they should not be admitted.
The controls were already in the trial files at the preliminary hearing, since they were deposited in Oct. 2008 before judge Micheli. They were not included in the Massei papers, also because nobody - including Vecchiotti - asked for them.
I point out that the problem is not just about the controls being there or not: there is a point about Vecchiotti cheating: the problem is that she made assertins about the controls, she asseerted before the judge that she obtained all the data she had requested, and in fact she never requested them.



They were on paper and in image files on a CD, as far as I know.



Your lecture about "universal standards" matters about zero, what matters is the legal game and judge's opinion. It's the judge who, after looking at the pictures, decided that the raw data would be useless. It's not Stefanoni who refused to submit them. Stefanoni submitted what was requested, and even Vecchiotti stated she was satisfied with that.

There are so many missing details in this post. What was the date of the knife amplification Mach? Were the defence experts invited to see that? This has a bearing on the 6 day gap among other things.

The defence applied for EDFs in July 2009 for sure (possibly before for all I know but certainly then) and the application was resisted. Why? Again, from memory, Comodi's reasons included the fact that the court file was already quite big and the defence had not explained why they needed them. The first reason is laughable and the second shows why Italy (and all criminal jurisdictions) needs a Brady rule governing prosecutorial disclosure.

It's true the defence objected to acquisition of the mysterious document Comodi tried to file at the last minute in the Hellman appeal but that was not because they were playing games. Comodi was doing that. She had read the C-V report by then and realised that screwing around with disclosure to the experts had created a bad impression. Hence she tried to paper over the cracks. What she did not do was cough up the EDFs.

They must be added to a significant pile of material that has yet to see the light of day, all within the control of the prosecution insofar as it has not already been destroyed.

 

[anglolawyer]

Can someone in the UK record and figure out a way to upload this BBC program that is slated to air tomorrow night?

I have no idea how to do that but I am sure someone else will. I will watch and post the bullet points here.

 

[Planigale]

It's false, and provably false, because, on one hand we perfectly know C&V never requested control data in their e-mails, and on the other hand we also know that they declared that they had obtained from Stefanoni all what they had requested.

An embarassed Vecchiotti also admitted in her testimony she never requested control data files.

The problem is one should supply the control results without being asked because these are part of the result. Without knowing the control values the results are uninterpretable.

I also find the fact that evidence is destroyed routinely by the police less than reassuring.

The bra hook should have been stored in a 'paper' bag or in a watertight container with drying agent. The outcome was predictable. In the US and UK and I am sure elsewhere in Europe evidence for a murder would be preserved successfully. It would have been collected in the first place promptly. Why was it not collected initially?

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi RandyN and others,
Here's some PS for ya:

Originally Posted by Perugia Shock
Having failed the card of the ‘of course’, Comodi/Stefanoni pulled the ace out of their sleeve: the documentation of the negative/positive controls exist! It was delivered to the pre-trial hearing of October 8 2008! (According to them…)

So, Comodi gave to President Helmann two photocopies that document the controls.
The only problem is that Vecchiotti looked at the two pieces of paper and saw they had a different code from the one of the tests made on knife and clasp. Not only that: the codes on the fotocopies were almost unreadable.
Hellman and Zanetti wanted to go look for the proof that the documents had been really filed on October 2008 anyway. But after almost an hour of searching, they couldn’t find anything!

So Hellmann returned into the courtroom and decided not to admit that presumed proof that the controls were done.
Comodi insisted. And here, surprise: not only Helmann said definitely NO, but he pointed out that even if the documentation existed, even if it was really filed on October 8 2008, even if it was perfect, even if the negative/positive controls were done, that wouldn’t have ANY importance, since the contamination could have still occurred before!

This seems to match up with the actual testimony pretty well. Here is the part about Comodi presenting her "negative controls" (Google translation).

PROSECUTOR - The controls are here, I can show them to him
the experts with the negative controls President?
PRESIDENT - Well, let's see ... so maybe check
DEFENSE CHAMBERS. Ghirga - The deposited there?
Voices in the background. 8:23
DEFENSE CHAMBERS. Ghirga - Li also we would like to see the
President.
PRESIDENT - So we acknowledge that the prosecution exhibits
controls
negative related to genetic investigations on
Vecchiotti C. - I am of the negative controls that are
related
Genetic investigations on the two bodies of crime, for
courtesy ...
CONTI S. - These are the negative controls.
Vecchiotti C. - So I see here "negative controls" can ...
PRESIDENT - Must speak ... more
RG 10/10 RGNR 9066/07 - 30/07/2011 c / A. KNOX + 1
131
Vecchiotti C. - So I, I, of the negative controls, the
thing, the explanation of which I wish I had because I did
not
a lot of ... Negative controls what? It says near the
number which are related to Exhibit 36 and 165?
PRESIDENT - This I must say she's got under her eyes.
Vecchiotti C. - No, but you can not see well, sorry huh.
CHAIRMAN - Maybe turn on the light because ...
Vecchiotti C. - You do not see just because otherwise ...
PROSECUTOR - seems to me to be clear.
DEFENSE CHAMBERS. Ghirga - We do not want them there ...
they could
see also Defenders us?
PRESIDENT - Yes, yes, yes definitely.
Vecchiotti C. - One is 896 ...
CONTI S. - (Off microphone). 9:12
PRESIDENT - items are considered part of the appraisal
then acquired for the purpose of expertise and your advisors
will certainly examine it.
Vecchiotti C. - 197 ...
CONTI S. - 475 ...
Vecchiotti C. - I can not ...
CONTI S. - (Off microphone). 9:36
Vecchiotti C. - We read the numbers that frankly do not
we can compare them with the numbers that were given.
There is 47329, there must be somewhere watching, if not
are there ...
Voices in the background.
Vecchiotti C. - So here it reads "ID818 negative control"
are these? ID818?
PRESIDENT - I guess you need time to examine them,
is not it?
Vecchiotti C. - No, I read 818, 805 I believe are the
numbers, I
so now I'm paying you for help, the sample? Of
different samples, right?
RG 10/10 RGNR 9066/07 - 30/07/2011 c / A. KNOX + 1
132
PROSECUTOR - (Off microphone).
Vecchiotti C. - No, but you know what I sample because the
code I have for example the track A is 329, 330, 331 and
I can not ...
PRESIDENT - It will be the case that the next riferirete
hearing, you will have to look short, you will need to
examine
I suppose.
Vecchiotti C. - 732, there are, however, are controls that
had not been attached ever.

And here is where they retired to go through the files and did not find anything.

ORDER
The Court of Assizes of Appeal,
decides that the Clerk to proceed on the spot to a search
of the negative controls that should have been required
GUP hearing on 4 October 2008, in which it was prepared
the delivery of these documents and that Dr.
Stefanoni claims to have them delivered on 8 October
2008 at the Registry of GUP.
DEFENSE CHAMBERS. BONGIORNO - But still they are not ...
PRESIDENT - Yes, but if you have been placed, said to have
been
deposited at the hearing on GUP as I understand it.
DEFENSE CHAMBERS. BONGIORNO - So when ...
THE CIVIL CHAMBERS. Maresca - President, there is the list
of
documents that form the dossier of the trial
made by Dr. Micheli, there is just a list of two
pages, I guess there is also the floppy disk that has been
acquired.
PRESIDENT - In the meantime look for them, we will suspend
for half an hour.
(Suspension).
TO RECOVERY
RG 10/10 RGNR 9066/07 - 30/07/2011 c / A. KNOX + 1
178
PRESIDENT - So we, with Dr. and Mrs. Zanetti
Centorrino, we tried, we could not find anything I
say, and we have here a copy of the decree ordering the
judgment, the decree of the GIP of 28 October with the
content
the case to the trial and there is no trace in
reality of these investigations. So you do not have to do
no further investigation.
ORDER
On the objection of the defense of the accused, do not
assume the
current production of these negative controls.

 

[LondonJohn]

Strozzi,

Dr. Vecchiotti's article last year (in Frontiers in Genetics) indicated that there was extraction buffer (I posted a recipe in a previous thread) in the tube in which the clasp was stored. "It could not be analyzed by the Appellate Court experts as it had been stored by the scientific police in a tube containing extraction buffer, which made it completely rusty." This is beyond feckless.

Indeed. Not for the firs time, Machiavelli has been shown to be either a) ignorant of the facts/science or b) knowledgeable of the facts/science but choosing to deliberately dissemble and mislead.

I would also point out that even if a liquid buffer solution had not been used, it would still have been a gross error to place the bra clasp inside a sealed, airtight plastic tube for storage. It's basic protocol that evidence of this sort must be placed into permeable paper/card containers (e.g. a sterile paper envelope), in order to allow moisture to escape.

The fact that Stefanoni decided to store this critical item of evidence in such an incompetent way that was almost certain to end in its degradation is yet another illustration that she was not fit to do her job properly. The same goes for the blood-soaked towels - again, these were a potentially-crucial piece of evidence, and again they were incorrectly stored such that they moulded and became useless for any sort of forensic evaluation.

These sorts of errors - which can be directly attributed to Stefanoni - are completely beyond the pale. They would be totally unacceptable in the most minor of criminal investigations/trials. But the fact that they happened in an extremely serious and high-profile case make them all the more astonishing, and speak even more highly to Stefanoni's failings as a forensic technician.

 

[LondonJohn]

And by the way, I am not even going to start to address Machiavelli's ludicrous "argument" regarding stomach/duodenum contents and ToD. I (and many others) have plenty of prior posts here that completely and utterly refute Machiavelli's flawed thesis. Suffice it to say that this is another case of Machiavelli either a) not understanding the science properly, or b) understanding the science but choosing to try to deceive through obfuscation, waffle and flat-out misstatements of fact.

 

[Desert Fox]

Is there any record as to Stefanoni's performance in other cases?
Is this a strange blip?
Basically, my thoughts is that would divide malice from incompetence

 

[LondonJohn]

Can someone in the UK record and figure out a way to upload this BBC program that is slated to air tomorrow night?

As others have said, probably the easiest way for non-UK residents to see this programme is to use an IP proxy and then to go to bbc.co.uk and watch it using the BBC's iPlayer service (internet catch-up of BBC programmes). It's unlikely that this programme will appear on BBC iPlayer until several hours after first transmission - i.e. the middle of the night UK time or perhaps 4pm Seattle time.

When the programme is available on iPlayer, I will post a link to it. To watch it as a non-UK resident, you'll simply need to use an IP proxy website to obtain a UK IP address, and then you'll be able to satisfy the geographic IP recognition on iPlayer.

Aside from that, the BBC places some of its output onto its YouTube site. It may be worth keeping an eye on that as well, to see if this programme is placed there.

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed. Not for the firs time, Machiavelli has been shown to be either a) ignorant of the facts/science or b) knowledgeable of the facts/science but choosing to deliberately dissemble and mislead.

I would also point out that even if a liquid buffer solution had not been used, it would still have been a gross error to place the bra clasp inside a sealed, airtight plastic tube for storage. It's basic protocol that evidence of this sort must be placed into permeable paper/card containers (e.g. a sterile paper envelope), in order to allow moisture to escape.

The fact that Stefanoni decided to store this critical item of evidence in such an incompetent way that was almost certain to end in its degradation is yet another illustration that she was not fit to do her job properly. The same goes for the blood-soaked towels - again, these were a potentially-crucial piece of evidence, and again they were incorrectly stored such that they moulded and became useless for any sort of forensic evaluation.

These sorts of errors - which can be directly attributed to Stefanoni - are completely beyond the pale. They would be totally unacceptable in the most minor of criminal investigations/trials. But the fact that they happened in an extremely serious and high-profile case make them all the more astonishing, and speak even more highly to Stefanoni's failings as a forensic technician.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the bra clasp was a plant and the placement in a liquid buffer solution and a plastic bag was Stefanoni's way of insuring that her work could never be checked by an outside body. This was her way of limiting the discovery of her corruption so she would never go to jail for her actions in this case. Stefanoni may be a total boob, but she knows better than to do this. Combine this and the strange way that the bra clasp became a piece of evidence and you know what happened.

This way the most that will happen to her is that she is criticized for her incompetence