I jus point out Stefanoni is not a "technician", she is an expert in molecular biology, has a PhD and she is a high officer in charge of forensic investigations. Yes, I do agree to the fact that the forensic who surveys the crime scene and choses what to collect is the same person who performs the tests. It seems the best to me. The laboratory experts should take care of the crime scene from minute one and manage the collecting of evidence, as long as possible.
This opinion of mine, does not mean I subscribe to the rules of coordination of the different teams working on a crime scene in the Italian system. I think there is often a lack of coordination due to beaurocratic reasons, a crime scene managment level should be implemented.
But it's very difficult to have this on a local territorial scale. Stefanoni for example is from Rome. Her team is called to operate for short-lasting periods of time (few hours) and has no logicstical bases nor means. Her department could never oversee an investigation. But there is no local office who does it on the place; there is no technical crime scene management.
I have no black/white opinion. I appreciate their professionalism, but also understand they lack means and must often operate based on improvvisation. My honest opinion on the "vidoes", actually, is that the videos are totally irrelevant per se as for defensive claims. They don't mean anything of the kind the innocentisti wish to see in them.
I fully accept the Carabinieri findings, and I see them as 1. contradicting C&V's claims, exposing their blunders and contributing to undermine their credibility; and 2. not discrediting Stefanoni's work at all. In fact their claims on the scientific matter were just identical to Stefanoni's (including the thoungt about "test repetition" issue, since I guess that's the point you are thinking about).
Why I refuse to "accept" the reports of C&V? Actually, to be precise I do not "refuse the reports", I reject the conclusions that C&V derive from the facts they list in their report. Namely I say that C&V make some assertions at the end of their report (and also some additional assertions within their report) which are either proven false (from the very facts recorded in their report), totally unsupported, or meaningless.
I reject the assertions rather than the facts.
But criticism to C&V report is actually more complex than that, I spoke about it thoroughly, and I have no time to go into all details now.
Just add something. Beyond assertions, there are also some proven lies: C&V are caught to be disingenuous and fraudulent in their report, in my opinion. They lie when they quote the Oct 2. 2008 transcript, for example. They misquote Stefanoni by inserting word she didn't write nor say. Etc. They are also intellectually dishonest in their procedure; they falsely reported about others decisions, they disobeyed the judges task and warped them, they stepped beyond their task by attempting to "judge" (attack) the honesty of Stefanoni instead of the research the topic. They were biased against Stefanoni, they have professional precedents that makes it worth doubt what they say (Olgiata, Cucchi, Cosenza, Ghira, etc..), but also they proved incompetent in their very profession that is coroner (the medico-legal profession). They have a specialization in "medicina legale e delle assicurazioni" (medicine in legal and insurance matters; that is = coroner). Conti proved to be ignorant of the law and procedures, on very basic points in a way a coroner is not supposed to be.
That, to say it just in summary terms.
You may have missed that I talked at length about Vecchiotti in the past. The Innocentisti were always desperate to reject the obvious evidence Vecchiotti was a liar.
Now, the "integrity" should be coupled with the "time" to answer, and the integrity of readers who always refused to acknowledge things that were shown to them
