There is also zero evidence that Stefanoni did anything right. Compare this with the RIS Carabinieri who at the Nencini trial brought ALL their work to the court, so that both sides could evaluate their analysis of Sample 36C. It was then possible for independent forensic-DNA experts not assiciated with that trial to tell whether or not they'd proved anything - unlike with Stefanoni in 2009.
And.... the RIS Carabinieri proved that Sample 36C belonged to Knox, therefore adding nothing to the significance of the knife.
Better stated: The evidence that Stefanoni did any forensic DNA testing correctly is missing, because she herself suppressed it. On the other hand, there is a definitive evidence of Stefanoni's forensic misconduct in the Knox - Sollecito case. Concrete evidence exists of this misconduct; for example, some of the negative control as well as positive control data from the real-time quantitative PCR that she did conduct objectively show DNA contamination.
Here's a summary of Stefanoni's forensic misconduct, revised from the previous version by a clarification of the ECHR significance.
The Seventeen-Plus Forensic Science Sins of Patrizia Stefanoni
There was a pattern of misconduct and malpractice by Patrizia Stefanoni and the Italian Scientific Police in their forensic investigation of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, and the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were charged with those crimes.
The pattern of misconduct and malpractice included investigations in Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory, the treatment of evidence, and her court testimony. She ignored and violated numerous essential technical standards for forensic science investigation, violated fundamental standards of ethical behavior, and produced invalid conclusions that contradicted logic and well-known scientific principles.
Stefanoni's misconduct and malpractice resulted in actions that would be considered violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6, right to a fair trial, by Italy, including but not necessarily limited to, the failure to provide adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense (Art. 6.3b) and the failure to provide equality of arms to the defense (Art. 6.1), had Knox or Sollecito been convicted of the murder/rape of Kecher based on Stefanoni's alleged forensic evidence.
Here is a summary.
1. Stefanoni failed - indeed, refused repeated requests - to turn over a copy of the best evidence of the DNA profiling investigation, the raw data, called electronic data files (EDFs), to the defense;
2. She suppressed numerous results, including potential exculpatory findings; these include blood stains from the downstairs flat, the full results of the rape kit, and results of tests on the putative semen stain on the pillow;
3. She destroyed evidence, in particular the bra clasp, preventing any DNA profile retest;
4. She entered false reports of data into her reports (RTIGF #1 & #2);
5. She committed perjury, for example, regarding the amount of DNA in the knife blade sample and that RT-PCR was used to quantify that DNA;
6. She delayed providing the minimal DNA data that was given to the defense until late in the trial;
7. She did not reveal in a timely manner to the defense and the court that TMB tests were done and precluded the presence of blood in the luminol foot print hits attributed to Amanda Knox;
8. She and her forensic police team mishandled specimen collection, in particular by swabbing large areas, failing to change gloves, failing to used DNA-free forceps for holding specimens, and by handling DNA specimens with dirty gloves;
9. She and her forensic police team mishandled chain-of-custody, specifically by repackaging the knife from Sollecito's kitchen in a police station without proper control against contamination;
10. She repeated tests that were conducted in secret (as deduced from irregularities in test sample numbering), to obtain false inculpatory results, for the kitchen knife and bra clasp;
11. She apparently manipulated positive control samples in the RT-PCR quantification to obtain high intercept levels probably in order to make unknown DNA samples appear more highly concentrated than they truly were;
12. She used the Qubit fluorometer to quantify DNA concentration in samples without having validated the equipment and procedure;
13. She arbitrarily used certain specimens registering "too low" for DNA concentration on the Qubit fluorometer for DNA profiling, and apparently not others, in a suspect-centered manner, violating good forensic practice. A reading of "too low" with the Qubit may mean there is actually no DNA present;
14. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a method she had "invented" without validating the method;
15. She attempted to conduct LCN DNA profiling in a lab not adequately set up to prevent contamination, and thus inherently unsuited for LCN DNA profiling, which is highly sensitive to low concentrations of DNA;
16. She stated in court testimony that she had never been told of a contamination incident in her lab, however, the data she gave to the defense shows several incidents of contamination;
17. She did not supply records of methodology and quality control (such as rate of contamination and corrective measures) nor provide profiles of blank and positive control specimens to the defense, such records and control profiles are ordinarily and necessarily part of a report from a forensic DNA profiling lab;
18. She did not call out all the DNA alleles and profiles detectable on the bra clasp, instead only identifying the victim and one of the suspects (Sollecito), while DNA from several other males was detectable (indicating that the bra clasp had been contaminated).
19. Presented conclusions from the DNA data contrary to reasonable forensic science practice because of the absence of replication and the presence of contamination.
