Patrizia Stefanoni's Testimony (English)

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an English language translation of the testimony. See Patrizia Stefanoni's Testimony for the original Italian transcript.

Thank you to katsgalore/ZiaK for this translation.

This is the first 150 pages of Patrizia Stefanoni's Testimony. More will be added as soon as the translation is completed.

Key to abbreviations
GCM Giancarlo Massei Judge Presidente
MC Manuela Comodi Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero
PS Patrizia Stefanoni Witness being questioned Head of Forensic Genetics Investigations section in the Rome Forensic Police
GM Giuliano Mignini Prosecutor Pubblico Ministero

Patrizia Stefanoni's Testimony, Day 1

Questioning of the witness: Stefanoni Patrizia

THE WITNESS, CAUTIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART. 497 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, READS THE OATH

GENERAL INFORMATION: Stefanoni Patrizia, born in Naples on 15 January 1968. Currently I am Chief Technical Director [and] biologist [4] in the Forensic Genetics Investigations section of the Rome Forensic Police.

GCM:
The Public Prosecutor may proceed with the questioning.

Public Prosecutor - Dr. Comodi

MC:
Dr [Stefanoni], first of all, would you tell the Court what your specific knowledge and competence are, where you work, what duties you cover within the Rome Forensic Police, and then we will begin from when you were called with regard to these proceedings, what tests you carried out. You can just carry on, and if necessary I will interrupt you from time to time.
PS:
Yes, in the course of. As I previously said, I am the official in charge of the Forensic Genetics Investigations section in the Rome Forensic Police, therefore I deal with forensic genetic analyses, and thus with the DNA analyses which are targeted at, or shall we say are concerned with, obviously, the [exhibits/findings], traces, samples discovered on the various crime scenes and [confrontations/comparisons], naturally, of victims, suspects, persons under investigation: in other words, with all those who for various reasons have anything to do with any judicial investigation delegated to the Judicial Authority of our service within the Forensic Police.
MC:
Thus you are a biologist?
PS:
I am a biologist, yes.
MC:
Before we go into, let us say in [average] stress, therefore before going into this specific investigation, would you like to give us an [5] outline of the aim of your analyses, what DNA means, what is ascertained through DNA analyses, etc.?
PS:
Yes. Regarding this question, I also prepared - and attached to the presentation which will later present the results of the analyses carried out - I will be able, let’s say, to use the presentation that is being projected/screened here in order to try and make it the easiest, the most understandable possible…
MC:
That will go without saying.
PS:
Those that will then be the, let’s say, concrete analytical data of the case, because of course I’m aware that obviously those who are not experts in this work are not aware of the technical procedures, the potential/power that this analysis holds within the scope of the judicial investigation, and therefore I will try to be as clear as possible; as far as possible I simplified the basic concepts of genetic research, and did this, obviously, for the benefit precisely of anyone who is hearing for the first time about forensic genetics, and therefore I hope that this attempt of mine will prove to be useful for a better understanding of that which will be said later.
MC:
Very well, let us carry on. Yes.
PS:
First of all, I would like to just, like this, some information about what is needed, how the biological analysis fits in in the context of the Police investigation; obviously this analysis forms a support/back-up to the real/true/actual investigative activity; obviously through the analysis, [6] as I said before, of biological traces/residues from various sources, then crime scene, autopsy samples, comparisons of suspects - persons under investigation, and what have you. And then by means of this activity we can for the most part achieve two aims, to above all offer to the judicial Authority who is obviously following the case an objective comparison/confirmation of the declarations, testimonies, of everything that can be … let’s say, can form part of, there, the context of the investigation, precisely by means of an analysis that is by its very nature objective. And then above all establish a connection between any individual whose DNA has been identified and an object, a place, a specific person, and so on. Because of course the genetic analyses are aimed at identifying the traces left in a particular place, and thus identifying the subject who deposited them - who we say is the owner of that biological trace. What is pretty much the general characteristic of this analysis in the forensic context? Because, of course, DNA can be analysed from so many points of view, even medical - health. The DNA test - as in fact is written on the slide - is useful precisely for the purpose of identification, as I said earlier, but only if one condition is true: in other words, if it is possible to carry out a comparison. What does this mean? [It means] that the analysis itself of an unknown trace does not imply [result in] the identification of an individual. I don’t find, obviously, in the DNA analysis the name and surname of a person. It is an analysis. It is a technical datum. It is an analytical datum that however is of value only if I have the same technical datum of a person [7] who I wish to compare. Thus, if I have the DNA of a suspect, I can compare that analysis carried out on the trace and on the suspect using the same methodologies, with the same analytical means, and can say whether the suspect is the owner, so to speak, of the trace, or also if the suspect is not the owner of the trace. Just as any other person, also the victim of an aggression even, can be compared with a sample taken in a place and see whether that sample can be ascribed to that person or not. It does not provide anything more than that. That is obviously one of the limits that it has - somatic characteristics - our analysis, that is, obviously: somatic characteristics - with regard to possible typologies, let’s say, I don’t know, of the appearance/looks that that person has - we cannot thus work our way back up to this [(NdT: i.e. how the person looks)] through DNA analysis, in the forensic context obviously - because everything we are is inscribed in our DNA - but in the forensic context we cannot trace back of course, also for reasons of privacy, to the characteristics of the subject, and therefore we cannot know if that individual is tall, thin, has brown eyes, I don’t know, has blond hair, or whether she/he is susceptible to any given pathology, has any active diseases, and therefore our analysis does not look at these data which are, nonetheless, in some cases actually inscribed within our DNA, right from the moment of birth. Furthermore, it does not provide any indications of time. In other words, we cannot say with regard to a trace or to two traces found on the scene of a crime - and thus two traces that are even [8] very close - or maybe even far, in two different places - we cannot say whether those two traces were left at the same time, were one after the other, have different times of origin, even several days, several months: we cannot compare this information [these traces] from a time point of view. And finally, it is not possible to establish on a single given crime scene, and thus in a single given analytical context, it is not possible to scientifically establish a before and an after. Therefore this analysis links an individual to a place, thus to an object, as I said before, to a place, to a room, to a car, but not to a time.

What are the sources of the biological samples? In other words, what is it that we analyse? Where do they come from? Above all, where is this DNA, which is a biological molecule, found? It is found in the nucleus, thus in an organelle, which is present in the cells of various tissues - virtually in all tissues, with the exclusion of one part of the blood which, in fact, is actually the most conspicuous part of blood, and that is the red blood cells. Because red blood cells are also functioning cells through and through, but at a certain point in their [differential/specialized] process red blood cells lose that nucleus - it is no longer of any use to them. This is one of the reasons why red blood cells are continuously renewed/replaced, because they cannot live long without a nucleus, and thus without DNA. However, apart from the red blood cells, practically every cell in our organism, right from seminal fluid with spermatozoids, saliva with epithelial cells from the mucous membrane, organic tissues in general, the [9] teeth, the white part of the blood - and therefore the white blood cells in blood can be used for DNA extraction and analysis. Therefore practically all the cells in our organism are suitable sources for genetic analyses.

Just a few brief notes in order to better understand this molecule. So, DNA in the cell is subdivided, so to speak, into 22 pairs of chromosomes, which are like a sort of little stick, let’s say filamentary structures, that you can see obviously in this box/frame [slide illustration]. This has been artificially highlighted: they aren’t really coloured this way - they were coloured artificially using cyto-chemical techniques. Thus the DNA, as I was saying, contained in the nucleus of the cell is in fact formed of 22 pairs of these chromosomes, equal to two by two, plus a pair that are the chromosomes that determine gender. Thus, if we have a woman, we would have two chromosomes that are called X [chromosomes] and if we have a man we have one Y chromosome and one X. Why 22 pairs? Because in reality this, let’s say, is the fundamental point in understanding the origins of each of us - that is, each of these pairs, therefore each of these two chromosomes, are inherited from the father and the mother equally. Thus a pair contains a paternal chromosome and the other one is the homologous chromosome, that is it is equal, let’s say, in form and also in function to the mother, and so on. Therefore we are the product of 50% of [each] of our parents

. What else can we see in this slide? Apart, of course, from the structure of the chromosome - which is as if it was unravelling in a continuous thread - and this in fact is exactly at [10] the molecular level - the DNA molecule is a long filamentary chain - we can say something important: our analysis is going to look at some of these zones of the DNA. Thus we don’t analyse the whole DNA - it would be impossible - we look at several characteristic traits of the DNA in every person - about which in fact, I will say something in a simplified but complete way, I consider - and this zone in generic terms is named the locus [locus genico]. So, the locus is any zone - as a first approximation we could say any zone that interests us - thus it is a point, a region, of the DNA. Some of the characteristics of DNA that I have, moreover, already indicated: it is a biological molecule, and therefore it is present in identical form in all cells. Therefore every one of our cells has the same DNA, contains the molecular information to carry out all the living processes of all organisms. Thus every organism has its own DNA, and through this it effectively runs its own life, its way of living. There are no two persons in the world, to this date at least, that have the same DNA, with the exception of identical twins. Thus, identical twins are not distinguishable using DNA analysis, with this DNA analysis. In reality they can be distinguished, but with different analyses that are outside the scope of forensics. [DNA] is inherited at the moment of conception in equal measure from each parent. And there is the particularity [in] that the Y chromosome - that is one of the two chromosomes of the pair that determines gender - is transmitted unchanged from father to son throughout the [11] generations. Thus every male individual in fact carries a bit of his origins because his Y is identical in his mother [sic!], in his grandfather, in his great grandfather, and he will transmit it to his male children. For this reason, he also shares it with his [male] cousins, with his uncles on his father's side. Thus it is practically an unaltered characteristic that is transmitted throughout the generations.

Let us examine in a bit more detail what it is that we actually do in the laboratory. Above all, whenever any biological-type evidence/exhibit(s) arrives in our laboratories they have to be above all catalogued; that is, they have to actually be identifiable in an unequivocal manner until the end of the processing/working phases. We have a system that is precisely the SQL LIMS, where "LIMS" stands for "Laboratory Information Management System", that is a system for laboratory management, after which the evidence/exhibit(s) are thus catalogued. Now, let us see also an example. They undergo then the first phase of processing, which consists of photographic documentation. Furthermore, other than the photographic documentation, we begin to look at the evidence/exhibit(s) and to see possible traces that may be useful for sampling, and therefore for analysis. Then one can determine, obviously on each trace, if it is possible, the type of trace, thus whether we have a trace of a salivary type, of blood, of seminal liquid and even the nature of that trace. With regard to blood and hairlike-structures which we also have in common with animals, it happens, but fairly ... let us say [12] frequently, and even hairlike-structures, because dogs and cats are the most ... let's say that these [are] the most normal producers of evidence/exhibits of a biological nature, since animals live with man, at least in an apartment, [or] in a car. One recovers hairlike-structures [whose origin] can't preliminarily be determined by the naked eye as being human or animal and therefore have to be analysed...
MC:
Did that very thing happen also during this investigation?
PS:
Yes, unfortunately it also happened in this case that a cat that drove us mad because initially, during the on-the-spot investigation, the investigation in the house on via della Pergola, thus the house where the body was found, unfortunately we were badly misled, almost made fools of by the fact that a cat - obviously wounded, had got into the let-us-say flat below the victim's flat. Obviously there was glass shards, broken in short, that were produced in entering the flat because the keys couldn't be found I know. And therefore this cat, unfortunately, was hurt and had left blood all over the place, obviously making us carry out an absolutely crazy sampling job because we thought that somebody had clearly ... in short, I don't know, [something] linked to the crime, and therefore had lost blood. But instead, it was actually a cat. Later, in assessing the first analysis on the samples we'd taken, on the nature and typology, we have the actual initial processing itself, which is the process of DNA extraction, in other words we have to take the [13] DNA and separate it from the whole cellular surroundings, because obviously we are interested in only the DNA - all the other components of the cell are of no interest to us, especially the other contaminants/polluting substances that accompany our traces. Our traces are obviously taken from any surfaces where they can be found/detected, thus [from] flooring, a car. By their very nature they are dirty, are contaminated/soiled whether by normal dust, the normal dirt that can be found on every surface, even unfortunately by microorganisms, therefore bacteria, yeasts, mildews/moulds that obviously begin the decay process of the trace in the very moment it [the trace] is actually created. Therefore we have to remove everything that doesn't interest us. This extraction is done mechanically, using an automated system: for example, in this case we used a bio-robot, in short a machine that is called E Zeta (Zed) 1, [made] by Qiagen. Furthermore, once we have our ... - presumably, because we cannot see it - our DNA, it undergoes the next phase of analysis, which is quantification. In other words, we determine if there is DNA, and in what quantities, in our test tube. The DNA appears effectively submerged in an aqueous solution; therefore it is colourless, absolutely unidentifiable to the naked eye. Therefore we have instruments to see what concentration we have, after which it undergoes another process, that we will see in a bit more detail, called amplification. In other words, we must make copies of the DNA that interests us because it is in effect in a state of extremely meagre DNA, the trace [14] might even be quantitatively miniscule. For that reason we have these means that allow us to increase the number of copies of what interests us, and then finally the electrophoresis, which is another analytical moment that in effect is used to achieve visible evidence of the genetic profile. Then we have, in fact, the reading of the results that have been produced by that electrophoresis and then the determination, if we are lucky, of the genetic profile. Because we might also not find DNA in that trace, and therefore in effect the analysis would have provided no results.

Let us go into a bit more detail about what happens in the laboratory. I was telling you about the cataloguing system for both the evidence/exhibit(s) and naturally for the traces that relate to them. So, we have in effect labels that are printed by the management software, by the LIMS, that catalogue the cases. In other words, everything that concerns a case, criminal proceedings, is computer-defined as a [case-]file label. So you see a number: there is a bar code, and this represents/constitutes everything that we, within the laboratory, indicate with that criminal proceeding, [and] therefore it identifies the case. After that, we have the label for the exhibit/piece of evidence - this association is given through the same file/dossier number, and the progressive numbers by which we catalogue the various exhibits/pieces of evidence. Thus, 1, 2, 3 and so on. This, for example, is exhibit/piece of evidence 17, and to each exhibit/piece of evidence number there is of course an associated [15] minimum verbal[memo] description, using words for the exhibit/piece of evidence [about] what it consists of. This, for example, is a pair of yellow slippers. For each exhibit/piece of evidence, then, there follows the traces relating to that exhibit, even here - perhaps you can't really see it clearly - however, besides the bar code, there are quoted the same numbers followed by 01, 02, 03, because these identify the various traces. Thus we have a system that links the case, the exhibits/evidence relative to the case and the traces related to each exhibit/piece of evidence.
MC:
So, excuse me Drssa, let us make a little practical example. The identifier, the identifying label in our case - the case, excuse the tongue-twister [NdT or quarrel?], is the murder of Meredith Kercher.
PS:
Meredith Kercher's murder has an identifier, that we can then see on the photos. I wished to put it from a generalized point of view.
MC:
Yes, yes. But now let us make an example, so that we can understand each other.
PS:
Ok. The [case-]file number, of our file on Meredith Kercher, is 28-669, so, in effect, it would be written here, after which we have all the 228 exhibits/pieces of evidence.
MC:
So, for example, the sweatshirt evidence, with the blood stains.
PS:
Exactly. It would have the number, then, if I’m not mistaken, 171 [sic]. In fact, there is a sweatshirt exhibit.
MC:
In any case, let’s put that it was actually 17, it’s that one there. [16]
PS:
Exactly. That is the exhibit/piece of evidence, while the traces relative to the exhibit/piece of evidence are last in progressive [numbering]. So there are five, there are ten…
MC:
Blood stain on the shoulder/, blood stain …
PS:
Exactly.
MC:
These are the various traces?
PS:
Yes. Obviously the traces then are not… the precise point where they were sampled is not entered because it is not possible to enter it in the label that we see. However there is a visual association: I repeat [that] the cataloguing, I remind you, is the photograph of the exhibit/piece of evidence, in which I say that it is exhibit/piece of evidence 17, and [that] trace 1 is on the heel… being those of the slippers on the left heel. So I have the little letter A, B, C, that I put on the exact point of the exhibit/piece of evidence where I will take the sample from. So there is an association that can then be made later, in a very simple, very obvious/ordinary way between trace 1, which I call A in the photo, trace 2, which I call B, trace 3, which I call C, and so on.
MC:
Very clear.
GCM:
In order to better analyse this aspect, this, these labels are applied and [sic] when?
PS:
It is usually the official who applies them, so in this case it was me, at the moment when the case is assigned to me, I have to catalogue it with obviously …
GCM:
In the laboratory? [17]
PS:
In the laboratory. Thus assisted by collaborators, we do the photographic documentation of all the exhibits/evidences. Then of each exhibit/piece of evidence. And then I decide where to sample, according of course to a criterion, knowledge, in short, a specific - I hope - competence. Let’s go into more detail, without entering too much into the technical specifics, of the various phases of processing, giving just the “headlines”: So, as I mentioned earlier, extracting the DNA means extracting it from its cellular context, so membranes, proteins, organelles, everything that is of no interest to us, and every type of contaminant present in the trace - because this would cause a lot of bother in the following analyses. So even a colouring, for example, a piece of clothing is coloured: it gives us a lot of problems. So it has to be completely eliminated. Or a detergent. In short, those things that are extraneous. Then I’ve told you that it is quantified, thus, in order to know the quantity of DNA extracted from the trace. Then it is amplified. And now we see this process in a bit more detail: right beside these areas of interest that I pointed out to you earlier, the locus that we saw as an example on the previous slide, a few slides previous. And this technique, this procedure, that allows [us] to amplify and thus to be able to see in a specific manner these genetic points, is called PCR. Afterwards we’ll see it in, in a tiny moment, in greater detail.
MC:
Drssa, I interrupt you for a second. Bearing in mind that the term contaminate, contamination, contaminant, is, let’s say, it’s [18] the magic word of this trial, so we’d like to clarify what you mean by contaminant in this specific case?
PS:
In this case, the contaminant is any thing that is of no interest to me: it is a detergent, a soap, a cleaning product, a bacterium, a mildew [spore].
MC:
Could it be another human trace?
PS:
No, no no. That is not a contaminant. It’s anything that is of no interest to me for the purposes of the analysis and that causes me inconvenience. So, I can remove it chemically through the process of extraction, which is in fact also mechanized, robotized, in a very efficient manner even. After which the amplified DNA, precisely through this PCR process, is then subjected to a methodical/systematic analysis. I mentioned to you earlier capillary electrophoresis. The term signifies simply the movement of a charge in an electric field. Thus it is a fairly simple thing from the point of view of theory, but then rather complex from the point of view of application and machinery. And this machinery allows [us] to see, so to speak, the genetic profile. Because until now we have never seen this DNA [we’ve] extracted. We go on trust/faith. And the genetic profile that is transmitted to us by the software that works out the data is transmitted in the form of peaks of fluorescence. So we have signals that are peaks of fluorescence of various colours, that we will see shortly. Let’s look a bit more at the PCR, which is more or less the heart of the analysis, because without it the analysis we carry out would not exist. [19] What is photocopied? Because, in the end, it is a process of photocopying what is there. [We] photocopy the 16 points of the DNA present on both the pairs, on each of both the chromosomes of a pair. So in reality, there are 32 points. Each one comprises many variants in the population - many variants - and this is the basis on which identification is founded: the combination of these numerous variations in each individual is unique, and therefore allows us, in fact, to identify him/her. Each of us is like a sort of Fiscal Code [NdT, the Italian equivalent of a Social Security Number], thus each of us has a certain combination of these variants that are in fact the expression of his/her paternal and maternal inheritance - with the exception, of course, as I said earlier, of identical twins. Such regions of the DNA - but this, let’s say, you’ll remember it just as a term, but we will absolutely not enter into the detail of what it means - are called STR: Short Tandem Repeats. They are short repeated fragments of DNA. But this interests few [people], and they are identified using alphanumerical abbreviations. For example, we have TPOX, D3, FGA, and so on. So, in other words, these points that we analyse in the end are abbreviations - we refer to them/name them with abbreviations. Why is it necessary to photocopy DNA? I already partially explained this earlier. Because the quantity of DNA that we normally analyse, [that] we have available, is really very, very tiny: as is quoted here, it is on the order of a few tens of a billionth of a gram - which is a unit of measurement that we express as a nanogram. Thus it is a billionth of a gram. Therefore it is 20] possible to see the genetic profile obviously only by making copies of these regions. On top of that, when I say that we quantify it ourselves, from this analysis we have the total quality [sic] of the DNA, that in reality we don’t analyse the vast majority, because it is of no use, thus with that effectively one billionth of a gram we analyse less than 0.1%. So a really tiny quantity in terms, let’s say, of weight, which is a unit that we are used to consider. In reality, we actually analyse a tiny part of all of the whole of molecule.

Let’s look in a bit more detail at the PCR, which in fact means - as always with an English acronym - reazione a catena della polimerasi, Polymerase Chain Reaction. The polymerase is the enzyme, the heart of the relation [sic]; that is, we put a [quantity] X of various chemical substances, amongst which is a protein that actually acts as a … how can we say, as a workman: it is this which physically carries out this amplification, aided by various molecular substances. Let’s just see in detail how that multiplication happens, so to speak. Let us imagine we have this locus, TPOX - it’s one of the various loci that we might have. What happens? Through a thermal process between these two helices - because we must picture that this is the DNA helix, and therefore these are the two closely-bound ribbons - these two helices detach themselves because the heat makes them separate. At a certain point on each of the two helices, at a tiny part at the extremity of each of the two, another molecule sticks onto them, which actually allows [us] to see: it is as though it actually sought out the very region [21] that interests it - it does this from a chemical point of view - so, without entering into the detail, it is something that these two molecules effectively implement in order to see each other - they see each other reciprocally.

After they see the enzyme, what does the polymerase actually do? See this molecule, see what is written on this piece, and [which] is exactly the sister molecule? So, using this process, from this molecule we recreate two molecules that are identical to it. What I’ve told you is a bit simplified with respect to what actually happens, but in practice, conceptually, it is actually like this. So, from one molecule we have two. The process is begun over again, each of these two little pieces of helix separate, is photocopied so to speak, and then each one of these becomes two, still identical to the initial piece, and so on. What happens? Perhaps you can’t seem much. This is basically an amplification sequence/scale of the whole process that we carry out.

So with each cycle, there is an exponential increase of the number of copies of each of these points. I remind you that we have 16 different ones on each of the two chromosomes of the pair. At the 28th cycle - which is where we carry out our reaction to because the kit that we use is calibrated in order to achieve the maximum effectiveness/excellence from the results at 28 cycles - we have in effect 67 [22] million copies for each point of interest of the DNA. So each point that was initially - I won’t say one, but in short it was a very small quantity, because each cell has the same DNA, so we have few of these loci of each type - after 28 cycles we have 67 million copies.

Why 16 loci? Here, we enter a bit more into the detail of the analysis. Let’s look slowly at this slide. We have an haematic trace on the crime scene. This haematic trace is analysed and this is the partial result that we have - partial for reasons of space, because otherwise there would have to be 16 pairs - here, in reality, it continues. As I told you, these loci that we analyse are abbreviations, are indicated with abbreviations, so TH01, VWE, TPOX, FGA, and so on. Each of these characteristics is thus inscribed in the DNA of that trace. How is it inscribed? Through a pair of numbers: in the end, for each point we have in effect a pair of numbers, precisely those which you see, so they could be 6-8, [they] could be 16-19, [they] could be 8-8, and so on. These numbers can either be equal or different.

Let us consider two people: a suspect 1 and a suspect 2. These gentlemen obviously also have their [own] DNA. Let’s analyse the DNA of the two gentlemen separately. This DNA, if we were only to analyse it for example in these three points that I indicated using coloured bars, would not only be indistinguishable from each other because this gentleman has TH01 6-8 and so does the other gentleman have TH01 6-8; the TPOX of this gentleman is 8-8, and suspect number 2 also has it as 8-8, and the same even for the FGA. Thus not only would we not know which of the two is gentleman 1 and gentleman 2, but they would even be indistinguishable with respect to the trace, [because] even the trace has the same numbers at the same points. Thus this is absolutely not an [23] anomalous case: on the contrary, many of us undoubtedly share part of this information. But what happens? If we analyse other points from suspect 1 and of suspect 2, from his [sic] DNA we begin to see these gentlemen become differentiated. Thus we see that suspect 1 has 16-19 in VWE, in D3 he has 17-18, and so on, whereas suspect 2 has 17-18, 15-17. Thus between the two, by pure numerical comparison, we have [can see] that in reality the latest, let’s say, of the haematic trace, [the person] who left the haematic trace cannot be suspect 2 because in various points the trace and the DNA of suspect 2 are different, thus 17-18 is different [from] 16-19, while on the contrary this point is identical in this gentleman, suspect 1, and so on, if you see, for all the other points, [and] thus in this way we can associate a trace to a person. The more numerous these points are, in point of fact - pardon the play on words - the more confident we are in our analysis, in the excellence of our result, because the more points we look at, the more we can say that this differentiation/distinction is not only consistent, but it is also a good trace-suspect association because I analyse so many points. In reality, all the possible variants that I can have in each of these DNA points are represented in this graph, which is almost, let’s say, a recapitulatory graph of all the points that I can have, all the variants that I can have. So, for example, in this locus, you don’t see it, the D8, we have possible numbers that go from 8 to 19. In this other case, the D7, we have points that [24] go from 8 to 15, and so on. So these are all the possible most common variants in the world population. Thus it is the association of these numbers, so to speak, thus the combination of these numbers of each locus, that gives the complete genetic profile. So every individual, as is shown here, has in his/her own genetic profile at least one of these fluorescent peaks. What does at least one mean? If I have two [that are] the same, thus 8-8 - I remind you first that the TPOX has 8-8 - I don’t see two peaks: I see one superimposed. So in effect, one peak [at] 8 and an equal peak [at] superimposed. So in reality I see only one, but there are two however, because one comes from the father and one from the mother, which in this case match, so they are equal. Thus each of these peaks represents a DNA characteristic in that point, and for that reason it is defined as an allele. Thus one of the names which you maybe will hear these peaks called during the discussion, is allele. It is one of the names that you certainly will hear. So this allele, these variants, are present with a certain frequency in the population. So I might have brown eyes, in common with, I don’t know, maybe nearly the whole of Campania, or of Italy, while a person that maybe has grey eyes is extremely rare and therefore shares that characteristic with a very small number of people, and for this reason the characteristic is highly identificative. In reality, I remind you that the DNA analysis, this analysis does not see the let’s say somatic characteristics. I am simply making a very understandable example, very common in our [25] experience.

So it is as if we were to analyse all these characteristics in order to see which were very common, but also which were very unique to the individual, so as to be able to identify him/her. This, in reality, is actually one of the possible genetic profiles that emerge from the machine. So this is a trace, a trace from an individual. Evidently not all the peaks, as you saw earlier, are here, but there are [peaks] for each point of these two, or one - because one is precisely of paternal origin and one is of maternal origin. Obviously, this is the same graph shown in a table format. So here, I put all the abbreviations so to speak, with their related values, so the D8 has 13-15, the D21 has 32.2-33.2, and so on. What is there to be observed? It can be observed that these graphs have a few characteristics. They have, for example, a peak height that is variable from one point to another. This height is expressed in, let’s say, arbitrary units, given by the machine in unit(s) of relative fluorescence. In other words, we say that in first approximation, the higher the peak is, the more starting DNA there is. It’s not exactly precise, but it’s a good approximation.

Then what else can we see? That this individual is certainly of male sex, because there is an X and a Y: see these are the two alleles of the X and of the Y. And there’s another thing: each of these pairs of peaks has roughly more or less similar height that diminishes, so it becomes smaller going from the left towards the right. Thus we say it is as though the peaks that are here have more DNA, so to speak, [and] the peaks that are [26] towards the end have a bit less DNA. Thus these are the general characteristics of this genetic profile, as they are given by the machine. So we have peaks of fluorescence of various colours, but the colours are arbitrarily applied, in effect, by the software, which sees the fluorochomes [NdT: also fluorophores]. In short, it is a rather particular subject [rather specialized topic]: it’s not that the DNA is really that colour, obviously. So, there are peaks of fluorescence given as signals to the machine, the machine captures them and records them in the form of this graph. What is the identificative value of a genetic profile? A complete genetic profile, such as the one you saw first - thus 16 genetic points, that would be 15 pairs plus the gender - is effectively greater than one individual in several billion. What does that mean? That if I wished to find the same individual in the whole world’s population, I would not find him/her because I would in effect have to have a standard/typical population value of a billion billion, a million billion. So if I had such a vast population, I could have the probability of finding another equal individual. This, obviously, is a concept … you must take it a bit like saying … as being the truth, because it is a statistical concept of the frequency of these alleles, precisely as I told you earlier, more rare, less rare in the population. So it is a topic that is too in-depth to go into. However, this is the identificative value: a complete profile effectively has the possibility of distinguishing one individual in several billion individuals. Obviously, we don’t always have [27] such luck.

We also have the case in which not all 16 genetic points are amplified, so we don’t see all 15 pairs plus the gender. But we see maybe only some of those pairs. Why? Because, in effect, two things might happen: either [because] the DNA is of too little quantity, for which reason - since it is a random/fortuitous process by which the enzyme, in swimming in the test tube, finds the fragments that interest it in order to amplify them - maybe it doesn’t find any there because they are too small, and therefore they don’t run into each other; or because unfortunately the DNA is damaged by external aggression, so either too hot, [or] bacterial contamination that begin immediately to chop up the very DNA, thus if we don’t have those fragments whole, the helix let us say, at that point then we can’t do the photocopying, and so there are holes, [and] thus there are profiles which are called partial. In other words, we maybe have, as in this case, all the alleles, for example, so in the blue [we have] all the peaks and maybe in the green there are some missing. We are missing some of these pairs, we’re missing this other pair, maybe here we’re missing another one, and so on. However, we say that still because of the fact that I mentioned to you earlier, about the rarity or otherwise of the alleles in the population, therefore we can be fairly confident about these genetic characteristics in the population [when there’s] over 11, 12 pairs of these alleles, there can nonetheless be a good level of identification. It depends then on the precise DNA that we have, if we [get lucky and] catch the very rare characteristic in a population, the level of identification [28] obviously rises. If I find that in a locus there is a rare allele, for example the one that maybe determines those famous grey eyes, I would feel very confident in identifying and therefore in attributing that trace, partial though it may be, to an individual because that is a rare characteristic. Thus it depends a bit on the datum that we have. So one can’t establish a priori in a, shall we say, cut and dried manner. However we frequently say, or almost always at least in my case, from what I’ve seen in my work, that over 11, 12 loci it is absolutely possible to have an identification without [any] margins of doubt.

Let us go into a more in-depth analysis. This is a genetic profile belonging to more than one individual, so as we said earlier each of us has DNA in our genetic heritage, but it is possible that in a crime scene, for some reason, or even on a victim’s clothes, there are two traces of DNA superimposed, for example there are two traces of blood, what happens? That the two DNAs are mixed. I can’t tell them apart a priori because I don’t see the cell of Mr X and the cell of another Mr Y.

So effectively I can easily carry out the analysis and at the end realize that in reality that genetic trace is composed of an overlapping of two people[’s DNA], for example, or even of three, of four. In that case, the analysis of the datum becomes much more complicated. But let’s say, most commonly there is this type of situation - for example, in sexual assaults it’s very common [that] in the vaginal swab that is carried out on the victim often one finds obviously her [29] own DNA, because it is from the vaginal cells that it is extracted, and then also the DNA, perhaps of a spermatic nature, thus the seminal fluid of the aggressor.

What allows us to understand this? Obviously we understand it looking at the graph, because it is this final result that we look at. Obviously we see a particular thing. Each of these genetic points, these little grey rectangles, in some cases there are more than two fluorescence peaks. Here we have three, here we have three, here we have four, much smaller, and then, you see, here also two, because it means clearly that the two people have the same genetic characteristics in these points, like our two suspects of a few slides ago had a few genetic points in common. There is nothing strange in this.

How do we understand this is also a matter of a mix, in this case of a male and of a female? From the pair of sex chromosomes. If there were two females, we ought not to have the Y, which on the contrary appears in this position. If there were two males - because it is possible [that] in a brawl, in a knifing, the blood of two people mixes - we ought to have the Y more or less of the same height as the X because, I repeat, as I already told you earlier, the alleles in each locus have roughly the same height, so since these belong to the same locus, an imbalance of this type makes us strongly suspicious, just as all the extra alleles that we find in the loci do: it makes us strongly suspicious that this is a male-female mixture.

Furthermore, why are they thus [30] imbalanced? First of all, let’s look at this graph also from another point of view. We can even have - naturally we don’t know this a priori - two people … that is, the trace is composed of two DNAs in a quantatively different manner: maybe one has lost a tiny drop of blood and a big drop blood of the other ended up on top of it - thus a larger quantity of DNA - even this can be seen in this graph. In this case, what do I do to see this? I see, first of all, this aspect of imbalance, and then I see the loci that have the most number possible of alleles - thus in this case I have four - so the fluorescence peaks, here I have four, so I am confident in saying that two belong to one individual and two belong to the other individual. In this case, this genetic mix is a fairly balanced profile, because I see that … apart from [the fact] that it is in fact a male-female mix because we said that there was Y, but then the that loci have four peaks are in effect more or less of the same height. Those that have three [peaks] means that one peak, for example this one, the 10 that you can’t read, this green peak here, in effect is the superimposition of two peaks: one that was from one person and one that was from the other person, for which reason it has a greater height, and so on.

Thus the more or less quantitative relationship between the two profiles can be seen looking at these characteristics. What can we say? This is just like that, just to give you a more precise idea, it is hoped, of this topic.

If I have an amount of female DNA, therefore X-X, and an amount of male DNA, I have a [31] one-to-one relationship of the DNAs; I have for example 100 female cells and 100 male cells, so to speak, the relationship however that I see in the X and in the Y, that is, here, obviously takes into account all the total Xs and all the total Ys. Thus in reality a measure of X and a measure of Y gives three measures of X and one measure of Y, which is precisely what we observe in this case. That is, the X is three times higher than the Y. This means that this ponderal/weight relationship, let’s say, of [NdT: misspelled as “si”, not “di”] DNA of the two individuals is very balanced. If we had, on the contrary, a more unbalanced relationship, that is one individual has more DNA than the other individual - we have, for example, two measures of X, thus one measure of female and one measure of male, we have a two to one relationship of DNA. How do we see this on the graph? Because seeing the number of height of the peaks, therefore the related number of fluorescence, we see a 5 to 1 relationship. We can divide the height of the X and the height of the Y and see what the relationship is that emerges, because in any case only the male has the Y, thus the female does not contribute to having this type of chromosome because the Y signal is always one in a male-female mix, while what varies is the relationship of the X in relation to the DNA that belongs to the female, because it is she who has two Xs with respect to the male, who has one. So in reality, concluding this part, if the peak of the X, for example, is 900 in height - thus in RFU - and thus that [i.e. the height] of the Y is 100, this does not mean that the quantative relationship between the two DNAs is 9 to 1, as one would tend to think, but it is 4 to 1 because we are in this case here, so [with] four measures of X plus one measure of Y we have a ratio of 4 to 1. The total Xs in this case are 9, the Y is one. I hope that I have been clear enough.

So, let’s go on to the Y chromosome, which is also a rather important means of DNA analysis. In addition to analysing the complete profile, we can specifically analyse the peaks, so to speak, thus those STRs we spoke of earlier that are specific to the Y chromosome. In other words, we can carry out the whole analysis that we normally do on the total DNA of an individual, focusing our attention only on the Y. So we can only do this analysis on male DNA, obviously, because female DNA does not have the Y. So what is the characteristic of the Y? It is of exclusively male DNA origin, [and] is shared, as I already told you earlier, by all the descendants of a family on the side of the father. It contains DNA regions inside it, so the loci that a analysable using the same techniques with which the complete DNA is analysed, using the same process, so PCR - there is a specific PCR - the capillary electrophoresis is almost the same and so you then have the genetic profile, which I will show you. What does this analysis primarily permit us to do in genetic forensics? In reality, it allows us to also do other things, let’s say in other areas/fields, however in genetic forensics this analysis allows [us] to identify the male DNA in a mixed trace and to characterize/identify it in a precise way. So from this whole mix that we had initially, here we no longer see all these peaks, three peaks here, four peaks here, we see [33] only the male part, so the female part is totally ignored. So in this case, a mixed trace originating from a man and a woman makes … this analysis shows only the male DNA. What is the profile that emerges from it? You see, it is a much more simple profile than the preceding one because in each of these little rectangles, which are the loci that we analyse, there is only one peak because we analyse only the male part. You should consider this in effect as a duplicated locus. In other words, a part that effectively repeats itself from another part of the Y. However as [for] size, we say that it falls in this range of size, so you should consider this as another locus, even if in effect it falls in the same little rectangle. Here. So we have effectively in this case, in table format, so all the points that we see are summarized/[taken up again?]: the little grey rectangles in these written/printed in yellow, and all the numbers are summarized, which are numbers here too. These alleles have in effect a very similar denomination/name to the preceding one, and these numbers allow us to highlight/reveal in fact a specific Y profile. In particular, the genetic profile of the Y is called haplotype. This is a name that maybe you will hear, but it is in effect the equivalent of genetic profile of the Y, allele, which is the term that I’ve been saying to you for a while. Simplified as a definition, let’s say, it is the generic name by which is indicated each of the various peaks of fluorescence present in each genetic point that we have in the genetic profile of both the total DNA and of the Y DNA. So the Y also has [33] alleles that are, of course, [each] different [from the other]. So the allele is synonymous with the peak of fluorescence, thus either we say allele or we say fluorescence peak: we mean the same thing in this context.

Essentially this part, which is the introduction, is over, in the sense that I wanted - and I hoped I managed, because it is a rather complicated subject - to give you a few ideas/starting points, some information, to put you in a position to understand even the terms that are entirely unusual, that you have surely never heard unless it was in precisely the area of forensics, in order to understand how genetic analysis is performed, what it involves/implies. Obviously it was very simplified, this discourse I gave, however I don’t think I sacrificed, shall we say, any scientific correctness.
MC:
Drssa, excuse me. At the end of this general description/presentation, before passing to the crime-scene inspection, I consider that it is appropriate to talk now - but just for a moment - of the kits that are used for these analyses: what type of kit, how are they used, certified, etc. As you consider important.
PS:
Yes, yes, and then we’ll close the subject.
MC:
We’ll close the subject of the presentation.
PS:
Let’s go back a moment, just dissuade/distract … so, in effect, as I told you, these PCR reactions, these analyses, are not carried out by hand. Thus in our laboratory, or in any other laboratory, they are carried out using basically three diagnostic kits that are the same throughout the whole word because they are [35] in effect sold by multinational [companies] that compete for the market in a manner more or less… In effect, there is a specific kit, so actually … how can we say, we have the ingredients, we put them together according to [the instructions provided by] the company that supplies the kit, we put them together in a test-tube in very precise quantities, like in [baking] a cake, all the ingredients are put in a test-tube, and the reaction is brought about still in accordance with the standard procedures of course applied in every genetic forensics laboratory. These kits, of course, are not commercial kits for sale just like that, to the first-comer: they are kits that are subjected to very rigid checks/controls, thus these kits are validated at the international level. What does this mean? If I carry out an analysis here in Rome with this kit on this DNA, another of my colleagues, for example, in, I don’t know, Australia or in Nairobi or, I don’t know, in the Arctic Circle, if he/she has the same kit he/she ought to be able to achieve the same results has I had on the same DNA using, employing the same analysis conditions. So it is not possible that the same DNA, using the same kit, might give a different genetic result to me, working in Rome, and maybe to my American or Australian colleague who worked in their own laboratory. In this case we used, in order to analyse the total DNA, the one with the 15 points plus the gender, we used always the same kit by a production company called Applera, so the Applied Biosystem, a kit that is called Identifiler. Whereas with regard to the analysis of the [36] Y chromosome, we used, obviously, another kit, because we see different things. Different chemical reagents are required to analyse specifically only the Y. It is another kit that is called Way Filer, also produced by the same production company, which is in fact the Applied Biosystem. So these procedures, not only the kit but also the analytical procedures are in fact those validated at the international level and published now for many, many years in various international reviews/journals in this sector. I think that there is nothing more on the kit.

Of course, also the machinery that is used is machinery that is now ubiquitous: that is, they are of the latest generation, and are widespread in all the, let’s say, most modern laboratories to be found at the international level. Because naturally these analyses, being produced by multinationals, are in effect widespread…
MC:
On a global level.
PS:
Yes, on a global level. There is no country-specific company and so, in effect, there are two suppliers. We have used only one with regard to the kit and also with regard to the instrumentation more or less: especially for the capillary electrophoresis, it is still a machine, the 3130, that is produced by the same production company as the kit, and even that is in effect in common use on the worldwide level. In short, [it’s] the most innovative, there, that we have available to date.
MC:
Let’s begin by when you received the telephone call. [37]
PS:
In effect, the Forensic Police service, on Friday 2 November, in the early afternoon, very shortly after lunch break, in fact received notice that the Laboratory of the Forensic Police of Perugia would require support from our central office because there was a body that had evidently been murdered, thus not of natural death, that, in fact, required a technical crime-scene investigation. And in this case, as in other cases, the provincial or regional Laboratories, let’s say in the entire national territory, if they deem it, let’s say, useful, may request precisely technical support, operated by the central service of which we in fact are part. And so departed two different squadrons, one a bit earlier, and mine a bit later, that deal with various aspects of the technical crime-scene investigation. Precisely my colleague, Dr Giunta, is the official who dealt with taking latent papillary prints, and I, who am in fact the biology official, I deal with carrying out the specifically biological technical crime-scene inspection, because of course each of us is competent in a technical aspect, and above all because the biological or papillary print crime-scene inspections are very specific, therefore very … how to say, based on in-depth knowledge and must also call for highly-trained technical personnel. For this reason, each [one of us] left to deal with their own part [field] of competence. After which, we then joined up. Then as you see, I prepared a few slides specifically regarding that crime-scene inspection: we arrived, in fact, as was already [38] initially said here, in the house on via Della Pergola around 19.00-20.00 hours - perhaps closer to 20.00 hours than 19.00 hours - in the evening and began our activities [work]. Here, in effect, as a preliminary to everything that you will be told is a bit of a chronicle [detailed account] of that which has been - in a very concise/brief manner let’s say - [of] what have been the principle activities that have related to the whole case: so the analysis exclusively from the point of view of the DNA, in some cases then is overlapped, obviously, with other types of crime-scene investigations, precisely such as that carried out by [sic: i.e. “on”] the latent prints because a crime-scene inspection has, precisely, various facets. So here I am speaking of things that concern me specifically, but in some cases, then, these coincide with those [things] that happened, let’s say, from the temporal point of view, also for the latent prints. So we begin precisely to draw up a list, it is a mere list of what the salient facts are. First of all there’s the technical crime-scene inspection carried out at via Della Pergola 7, in Perugia, that is the place where the victim was found, and as far as the purely biological part of this inspection is concerned, it lasted from 2 to 4 November, with - of course - breaks overnight. On the date of 12 November, we began the technical tests and thus we gave notice to the Parties because at that date there were already, let’s say, suspected persons present, for which reason we had to give - obviously, as is provided for by the Criminal Procedures Law - [notice of] the beginning of laboratory operations, at which, obviously, several consultants, Lawyers, participated, that are reported in the [39] related minutes. Then there was a technical inspection on the Audi A3 car, belonging to Mr Sollecito Raffaele, on the date of 13 November 2007, which was under guard at the Perugia Questura [police station]. After that there was another inspection in Corso Garibaldi 110, in the dwelling used by Mr Sollecito Raffaele, on the date of 13 November 2007. The following day there was the technical inspection in via Alessi, in the bar Le Chic belonging to Mr Lumumba, and [which] was carried out on 14 November 2007. On the date 15 November, in our laboratories, there was convocation from myself to the parties’ technical consultants, on 15 November, to show them some of the analytical results obtained up to that date. Thus we had the first results and on 15 November they were invited to convene if they had, precisely, a need to see these [results]. Furthermore, on 20 November, a technical inspection was carried out in via Del Canerino 26, in Perugia, in the studio flat, the dwelling used by Mr Guede Rudy Hermann. On the day of 22 November, there was a further commencement of laboratory operations, subject to of course prior notice to the Parties, obviously … Perhaps you will have gathered, yourselves, that every beginning of operations obviously included a small part compared to all, let's say, to the considerable/great/substantial quantitative [sic - i.e. quantities?] of the exhibits/pieces of evidence that then in the end we analysed. So each time it was decided to analyse a part of the exhibits/pieces of evidence or that they warned [sic: "prevenivano" in Italian. NdT: I believe this is a typo, and should have been "prelevavano" &#062 taken from/collected/picked up] from the crime-scene inspections [that were] carried out from time to time, or else operations that concerned the exhibits/pieces of evidence collected by the first crime-scene inspection - the one in the victim's house - that were [40] agreed partly with the Judicial Authority and partly with the Perugia Mobile Squadron, let's say giving priority to one or to the other exhibit/piece of evidence according to the investigative prompting/cues that there were at that point in time, so it was decided maybe to analyse first one thing and then another in accordance with these investigative exigencies/requirements. On the date of 27 November, the beginning of operations - actually begun on 22 November - were continued. There was another beginning on 10 December 2007, and the related continuation of this beginning was dated 14 December 2007. There was then a further one, thus a second crime-scene inspection carried out on the date 18 December 2007 in the dwelling where the victim had been found. Regarding this inspection, there was then a beginning of laboratory operations on the date 21 December 2007. On the date 27 December 2007, the technical consultants of the various Parties were shown some of the results obtained up to that point, and in the same way too on the date 10 January 2008 some of the results obtained up to that point were shown. Other results were shown on the date 23 January 2008, and only on the date 25 January Professor Pascali, contacting me, asked politely whether he could come to the offices/premises because he had not been able to come on the date 23 January and so to see some of the analytical results obtained on that date. Towards .... we are getting closer to the end, on 21 February 2008 there was a further beginning of laboratory operations, and the same also on the date 27 April 2008. Everything was concluded with a viewing of the results on the part of the technical consultants on the date 20 May 2008, and thereafter [41] I submitted the technical report. So the paper/printout of all the analytical results obtained on the exhibits/pieces of evidence analysed, dated the 12 June 2008, which is the one [i.e. report] that was then lodged/filed with the Public Prosecutor.

Let's move now a bit ... first of all let's say a bit in general and then a bit of specifics with regard to our crime-scene investigation, some few basic knowledge, let's say, with regard to the biological inspection of the crime scene, so [about] the general rules that we follow when we are analysing a crime scene, whatever [i.e. wherever] it may be, so an apartment, a car, a crime-scene investigation can even be carried out outdoors. First of all, [one] has to operate in accordance with criteria of selection in the search and finding/discovery of the traces [evidence]. In other words, it is never possible, from any given crime-scene investigation -unless it is really a very (inc.) [NdT: "inclusive"?] particular case as a crime scene - it is never possible to pick up/collect everything because otherwise we would have to dismantle the house, we would have in effect to empty the rooms and we would have to take everything [for] analysis, which would cost, both in economic terms and in terms of time, something unimaginable. So, in effect, we apply selection criteria using [our] experience, in particular, but also simply the good sense [common sense] of the operator. So in a crime-scene investigation, even a rather complex one, as often happens, first of all one must choose the type of traces to be sampled. Thus first, obviously, give precedence to the visible ones, to the evident ones, and then one makes a choice whether to try or not to detect the [42] latent biological traces, above all, in particular, the latent haematic traces. Furthermore, one must choose the substrate/underlayer [NdT, I think the Italian "substrato" here means the layer on which something is found, rather than the chemical term, meaning "substance on which an enzyme works" or "reactant consumed in a reaction"] on which to have the trace; in other words, there are some difficult materials which give problems during analysis later in the laboratory. For example, if we have a trace of asphalt, apart from the fact that it is not very practical - although it's not that we collect the little block of asphalt or for a trace on a wall we collect a little piece of the wall - thus we try to take, even from a very cumbersome exhibit/piece of evidence as may be, I don't know, there's car door or a bumper, we try to have [the trace] on a substrate that is practical for us: it could be a little piece of blotting paper, in other words the special paper that is used in laboratories, to collect as far as possible the material from these underlayers. Then, obviously, there is also the choice of the size of the underlayer/substrate. Obviously, it's not useful to use a sheet of paper of substantial/extensive size: it's better to have the trace as concentrated as possible on a small piece so that then in the laboratory one has a better possibility of analysis, and thus as far as possible to concentrate the traces in the test tube, because the test tube is a very restricted [i.e. narrow] object - very small. We cannot put an enormous amount of trace[s] within it, we can [only] put a trace in it that at most may be a few square centimetre in surface area. So we must have a very concentrated underlayer/substrate. [And] then, the number is important too: obviously if we have dribbles of blood it is of no use to gather them dribble by dribble, if they are obviously visibly and by logic [43] traces that come from the same source - [perhaps] because they are drops that maybe go in the same direction. We try to sample, shall we say, a sufficient/adequate number of them but, well, by spot-checks/random sampling in fact, thus taking some of them and leaving others. Furthermore, we also have a choice to make with regard to the quantity of homogenous traces: it is of no use to take too large a quantity: [if there is] a puddle/pond of blood, it's not that we take it all because there is absolutely no point. However, we must also be careful not to take too little because, obviously, we cannot a priori know how much DNA there is within it. I told you that blood - which is what is most commonly found on a crime scene and is also the most conspicuous - blood can hold very bad surprises because, as I told you, the red colour comes from the red blood cells that don't have a nucleus, thus we must nonetheless have an adequate quantity because we take the white blood cells which are several thousand times less in quantity than the red blood cells, so even from a perhaps large [quantity] we might have the bad surprise of finding nothing. And maybe then from a very very small trace we might then have the good luck of finding such a lot of DNA material. It depends also on how it has been preserved: if it was exposed to the sun for a long time, it's possible that the trace of blood, even if it were substantial, might nonetheless give scanty results; if it was in a humid environment, for example, I don't know, a towel soaked in blood, left there for a few hours, unfortunately the humidity fosters microbiological [sic] proliferation, and for this reason may [44] facilitate the deterioration/decay of the DNA. Obviously, one must also be very careful about the form - so the morphological aspect - because there are the famous spurts/spatters of blood that can give very useful information, not so much to myself as I am a biologist, but the must be taken [recorded] with video instruments, photos or even with a specific device, which is the Sferon, in order to make sure obviously that, if necessary, [or] if it is to be considered expedient, the specific analyses can be carried out - one specific analysis in particular, which is the Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, the BPA, that in effect allows [one] to see, well to foresee rather than to see, to foresee the angle from which these spurts/splatters were produced, and thus to make an approximate reconstruction, but precise nonetheless, of the position from which these spurts of blood were issued.

Furthermore, also another fundamental point obviously of the crime-scene inspection is that of proceeding with attention and caution that will permit the maximum possible preservation of the crime scene. Obviously, one must avoid any type of ... how to say, any procedure, any imprudent manipulation of things that might cause contamination. So what does this signify? That the operator must protect him/herself from possible contamination by something infected of course, which might be the blood, all biological fluids can obviously carry pathogenic agents. But then he/she must be careful not to him/herself contaminate with his/her own DNA any possible exhibits/pieces of evidence and traces, so to this end he/she uses [45] personal protection such as gloves, overalls, shoe-covers, masks, in order to avoid any kind of exchange between him/herself and the environment. Obviously, he/she must also avoid that the exhibits/pieces of evidence contaminate each other, and so for this reason we adopt the procedure that every single exhibit/piece of evidence or trace is protected from this by being stored in a safety bag, in other words in those bags that can seal anything that is contained within it in a practically secure manner against any ... let's say, external abuse whatsoever. Or else ... I don't know, test-tubes, let's say, rigid plastic products [vessels], in which we keep, in fact, the trace samples collected at the crime scene. Thus individually, also because they must be identified individually. Obviously one can also use sterile single-use devices - which might be pizzette [sic: NdT: "pizzette" is small pizzas. I think this is a typo, and should be "pinzette" - i.e. tweezers.] whether of metal [and] in fact single-use, or scalpel(s) or test tubes - wherever we are taking samples.

Now, let's go into a bit more detail about this crime-scene inspection. I am referring above all to the first crime-scene inspection, the initial one, because it is the most complex one in reality. The general criteria adopted were first and foremost that the technical procedures that were carried out in the house on via Della Pergola went from the inside of the house towards the outside. This was for two reasons: one main [reason] was that the body was in the furthest room along the corridor that leads towards the outside, for which reason - since the victim's room had priority because it was necessary to remove the body, it was necessary to preserve as much as possible, obviously, everything from degradation, contamination and what have you - it was [46] decided to do the crime-scene inspection of the victim's room as a priority and then in that way we would not, in effect, go back again [to that room], then carrying out the procedures towards the outside/exterior, at the same point, so that we were in fact going towards the exterior. Then all the rooms, and all the surroundings were then taken in priority with respect to any activity with the Sferon: this apparatus, of which you have perhaps heard mention, that allows shots/films to be taken in 360°, so it’s a sort of photo-video camera that turns upon itself, in this way the Sferon shoots every object that is in the room, at any height, even the ceiling, except for a little… In effect, a little circumference that is its blind point, in other words, it is the [point] where it is, in effect, because it cannot shoot/film itself, that is, it would have to turn around [on itself to film itself], and so any room is frozen in this way, so that then later, even when [things] are taken away, exhibits/pieces of evidence are moved, the Sferon then allows, obviously on the computer in the office, to see once again exactly the positions and to see again the whole scene just as it presented itself to our eyes.

Let’s turn now to the sequence of the activities. I did it very schematically because, anyways, we will certainly speak of it more at length. So the sequence of facts, what was it? I am in fact arriving, as I mentioned earlier, at the scene of the crime at about 1900-2000 hours. On my part there is a quick inspection of the rooms. I am shown [around] by the personnel who had already been there since the afternoon from the provincial laboratory of the [47] Forensic Police of Perugia and I meet the coroner, Dr Lalli, who shows me the cadaver, exactly where it was, still covered, so it had not been touched by anyone before our arrival, and with him I agree on the schedule, in effect, of how we should each proceed reciprocally, because both he and I have things to do, each in our own field. What was the problem? The problem was that the cadaver could not be removed in a way … that is, immediately on my arrival. Why? For matters of expediency, shall we say, for the opportunities that had certainly to follow: [we had to] sample the exhibits/pieces of evidence above all, that were right at the feet of the victim, otherwise we would have walked over them, obviously with our feet, because the space was very small. Obviously we have to walk [about], so clearly that zone at the feet of the cadaver had to be examined for exhibits/pieces of evidence, and an even more important thing that has to be examined for exhibits/pieces of evidence before the victim’s room – where, in fact, as I said earlier, the priority crime-scene is – there was, however, a need to examine for exhibits/pieces of evidence the corridor that leads from the victim’s room to the living room, kitchen corner and also a part of the floor of the living room – the kitchen corner because it was very clear that there were bloody shoeprints, so if we, obviously, then had started the activities, having to walk [over], we would have risked walking over them [the shoeprints] and erasing them over time. Instead initially, obviously having had the foresight/wisdom to see them and to preserve them with the numerical markings, in fact with the scene of the crime prepared/organized by the workers of the [48] provincial Laboratory, obviously they [the shoeprints] were saved from this inadvertent trampling, and therefore in effect we had to carry out these operations before proceeding with the removal of the cadaver. In fact as is described here, one starts from the flooring of the corridor and of the victim’s room with the bloody prints of shoes and objects on the flooring at the feet of the cadaver, after which there’s the continuation of activities with the examination for exhibits/pieces of evidence actually in the victim’s room, after which the cadaver was removed by the doctor [coroner] and in his presence, and with his help above all, the first biological samples were done, let’s say. In the immediate surroundings of the cadaver there were various piliferous [hairlike] structures: in fact, there were actually handfuls of the victim’s hair. So walking around the cadaver, these were highlighted. And then the coroner took two swabs there at that moment, one vaginal [swab] and one rectal [one], that were then consigned to me. Then he took some presumed piliferous structures in the area near the vagina. So all this in effect constituted in fact the first samples taken by Dr Lalli, and obviously were given, consigned to me.
MC:
Excuse me, Doctor. You said that even before the victim’s room it was necessary to do the ...
PS:
Yes, do this crime-scene inspection…
MC:
Yes, crime-scene inspection and examining for exhibits/pieces of evidence in the corridor, because there were clear traces of bloody prints.
PS:
Yes. [49]
MC:
As it is written there. But I would like if you would repeat, they were prints of shoes … of bare feet or only of shoes?
PS:
No, they were clearly prints of shoes because they had a shape, let’s say, an imprint/a tread that very much brought to mind sports shoes/trainers/sneakers because they were circular, or pseudo-circular, let’s say.
MC:
So the prints that were, as I say, evident to the naked eye, were those of shoes?
PS:
Yes, absolutely extremely evident, that then became progressively degraded [lighter] as they advanced, shall we say, they became swarming [sic: “sciamando” in Italian, probably a typo: should be “scialbando”, from “scialbo” &#062 “faint”/“colourless”?] towards the exterior/outside, and so towards the entry door they became faint and became almost threadlike, however one could think they were going along the same line, more or less, in other words the corridor was straight, so they were going in fact from the bedroom to the door, even if the last ones didn’t really have a circular shape – they were threads – this is because clearly they had left behind the blood during the, shall we say, the exit.
MC:
Were prints of bare feet visible to the naked eye instead?
PS:
No, no, no. No.
MC:
Thank you. Please.
PS:
So we were ... with Dr Lalli. No. We were here.
MC:
Removal of the cadaver.
PS:
Removal of the body. After which, in fact, we carried out the crime-scene inspection of the victim’s room, in effect between the end of the evening – noted, we stopped at more or less around … the videocamera reports 0224-0225 hours, something like that, [50] however in reality we left … in effect this videocamera is an hour fast, so we left in reality at around two [a.m.]. Then [we] began again, the following day, with other samples taken during the morning of Saturday and then subsequently when we had finished this activity, we proceeded with the examination of the small bathroom, that was next to the victim's room, then of the big bathroom, that was the other bathroom that was, shall we say, almost diagonal with respect to the ... situated in a diagonal manner with respect the victim's room. And then, finally, the living room/kitchen corner, where, as well as the bloody footprints on the floor tiles, we also took the cigarette stubs from an ashtray on the table. So in effect this is more or less the schedule/agenda of the activities that were carried out, or in other words, the timing of the activities that were carried out in the first crime-scene inspection.

I wanted to give you an outline/brief mention, also on the suggestion from Drssa Comodi, on the latent traces. Technically we have a method that can be used to reveal these latent haematic traces, that is the traces that to the naked eye are absolutely invisible. In what way? [By] using on the surfaces that we want to analyse a reagent that is called Luminol. This reagent in effect, what does it do? By means of a chemical reaction, it highlights – actually makes them [the traces] visible to the naked eye, by means of fluorescence, any possible/potential [traces], if present, any latent haematic traces that to the naked eye cannot be seen. Obviously this has a dual benefit both from the point of view of reconstruction of the [51] dynamics of the events. For example, the cadavers, often it happens that they are dragged from one place to another, because of which they maybe lose blood, and even if then maybe the flooring is cleaned, the Luminol reveals if there has been that repositioning, and obviously the thing that then, to me, principally, as a forensic geneticists, is that the sampling done on Luminol, and thus on the traces that fluoresce in Luminol, that are visible in the complete dark, thus a complete darkness that must be kept in the area in order to highlight this fluorescence, can also be analysed, if need be, if we are fortunate, in order to have a genetic DNA profile, because this means that there [at that point] there was blood, that was removed in an incomplete manner, not in an intensive manner, and therefore some DNA remains, and in some cases we can analyse it - not in all cases, because maybe precisely because the traces are latent, and maybe they were removed voluntarily by someone who wanted to clean, maybe those traces were in fact too small, and for this reason since the genetic analysis sees the DNA, but the Luminol doesn't see the DNA, it sees another thing that is [found] in the red blood cells, that as I told you are very abundant, extremely abundant with respect to the white blood cells that give the DNA, we can fortunately have red blood cells, or at least a vision, shall we say, of fluorescence without then being able to analyse the DNA because either there is none, or there is [DNA] but in such small amount that it cannot be analysed.
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because beyond microphone reach). [52]
PS:
No, in fact, as is reported later, the positive [response] to the test does not indicate with certainty the presence of human blood, and nor does it indicate with certainty the presence of blood, so if I have animal blood, such as fish blood, blood of meat that is commonly used, commonly handled, commonly bought in households, I nonetheless can have in those points where maybe there had been meat, fish, thus animal blood, I can nonetheless have a positive [reaction] to Luminol. I can have, however, a Luminol luminosity also in other circumstances, when for example I have a surface where there has not been blood placed against/on it, thus it has not had contact with blood, but maybe there's rust that I cannot see with the naked eye, [or] there's, I don't know, fruit juice - some fruit juices give positive [reactions] to Luminol - [or] there's also been grass, so also plant chlorophyll gives positive [reaction] to Luminol. All these situations are defined, indeed, as false positives. With the Luminol, I cannot distinguish/differentiate them, thus I cannot grasp whether this is a false positive or a true positive. I must however... how can I say, take note of them, document them, if I can, from a photographic point of view and attempt to analyse them, so a negative result to the DNA test on traces found with Luminol does not necessarily mean that there [in that point] there was no human blood: it might be that there [in that point] there was in fact no blood, so there was no human blood, maybe it was grass, [or] it was chicken blood, and so on. So I, with genetic analysis, can say with certainty that there was blood, but its absence, thus the absence of a DNA profile [53], does not allow me to establish much: it does not allow me to say if there was no DNA because there was too little, thus there was no blood and therefore there was DNA at all, or else there was something else that was not blood, there was maybe grass, grass residues that were trampled on. The luminescence that is given off is a very intense colour, very particular because it is blue, azure, and so it is visible for a few seconds, then declines/fades. It is as though that luminosity turns itself off and thus we can no longer see it: the reaction is spent/depleted. These are examples that regard this case: they are examples in fact of positive Luminol traces, and as you can see, these are plantar prints, clearly, in short, of bare feet, after the luminescence with Luminol. And here this piece of flooring is shown/reported that corresponds to this, not to this, but to this one here, where as can be seen on two of these intense fluoresences that we have here to the naked eye, with the light [of day] absolutely no trace is visible, no print, so no haematic trace nor any other type [of trace] is visible to the naked eye, whereas instead after Luminol one has this fluorescence which, however, as you can see, nonetheless has a background, because there are, indeed, so many possibilities of having false positives, so there could be a basis/bottom of ... I don't know, of earth, of rust, of something that mimics, but in a more faint way, thus a more feeble luminosity, less intense, let's say, [than] the luminosity that on the contrary is given off in correspondence to the points that we then choose to sample. I have not told you that Luminol reacts ... in effect it uses [54] as one of the ingredients of the reaction the iron contained in haemoglobin. This is why it is easy to have false positives, because rust also has iron, also chlorophyll does not have iron, but it has a molecule that is very similar to haemoglobin that contains iron, and anyway there is another atom that, let's say, replaces the iron in effecting this type of reaction, and this [atom] is magnesium. So in effect, iron can be shall we say, indeed, indicative of the presence of haemoglobin, but iron is not the only [atom] that reacts with Luminol: other chemical elements also react, also other metals, and then iron is not the sole constituent ... that is, it is not contained in a specific manner in haemoglobin, but it is an atom [which is] contained in a great many molecules, both organic and inorganic.
MC:
Excuse me, Doctor, if I interrupt you. With regard to what you said, I wanted to ask: for example, in the images, the one on the left, where the foot print is clearly visible, in short, it's well ...
PS:
Yes, it doesn't show very clearly because there is a lot of light in the surroundings [i.e. in the courtroom], however on the computer it is much more ...
MC:
However, it is easy to grasp that there are the toes ... What I wanted to ask you: in order to obtain such a clear image with the Luminol, independently of the liquid, or at any rate [independently] of the substance that reacts with Luminol this, so let's say that even [in] the case that it is not blood but that it is something else, even bleach, I know, even bleach.
PS:
Also bleach, yes, also bleach. [55]
MC:
But in order to have that image ... in other words, the contour is all black and on the contrary there's the clear image of the background.
PS:
Yes, in this case, in effect, there is no background, there is no background [NdT, in English in original text], there is no non-specific [background], shall we say, there.
MC:
So that means that, nonetheless, whatever liquid [it was that] the foot was stained/smeared with, that liquid was concentrated only under the foot? Do you understand? It's a difficult question that I want to [ask] you...
PS:
Yes, it's a bit complicated to answer in an unequivocal manner. In reality, what is in our experience is that that the false positives, thus it could be bleach, and there were even tests that have been carried out [and] brought to an international conference – because I remember having seen them, but I don't remember exactly when; it seems to me it might have been the ISFG [International Society for Forensic Genetics] in Zurich, since that was an international conference – that showed [i.e. the tests showed] that the fluorescence given off by false positives, in other words everything that is not blood, is nonetheless different even if it is still a bluish fluorescence: that is, the colour does not change, [but] the intensity and the duration change. So in effect, the intensity, thus, of that blue or that azure, so intense, is not given off, in general, by other reagents that are not blood: they give a weaker fluorescence, a bit like that which happens here: here there is a fluorescence that is however much more faint. Probably there is a state of, I don't know, soil, of dust, of something that maybe contains atoms of metal that in fact react in a different way, or traces of bleach, I don't know. In short, something that reacts in a more faint/weak manner and with a lower intensity [56] but also maybe with a shorter duration of fluorescence, because this signal/sign then wanes, [as] we have said, after a few tens of seconds. Maybe the false positive that is not blood wanes more quickly, that is, it goes out/dies away more quickly and is less intense. However, we say, it is a rather variable thing and depends also on the quantity, because we cannot know a priori [beforehand] what quantity of maybe bleach there is, maybe with a litre of bleach – something which I have never seen – maybe it gives off an enormous fluorescence. However then even the liquid [itself] would be visible, so it is not an easily definable thing from the quantitative point of view. However one can easily appraise/evaluate by eye, to the extent that in some cases, even in precisely these technical activities, we have had – in various points, in various floorings, in various crime-scene inspections where Luminal [testing] was carried out – a positivity, a fluorescence, which however I have considered, I have judged to be a false positive because it was very very feeble, very ... one might say ephemeral, and so I considered it absolutely of no use to sample [it] in this case because according to me it could have been anything else, but not blood. There. So, let's say, it is an evaluation carried out by eye with experience: as far as I know there is no method of measuring precisely technically and objectively a datum of this sort, which I am explaining to you.
MC:
However, if for example the corridor, because there is the corridor, no?
PS:
Yes, that is the corridor there, yes. [57]
MC:
So, if the corridor, let's say the case was that it was covered with a uniform layer of rust, or a uniform layer of bleach, and there was the foot – that clean foot – that had walked over [it], the image would then be this one, or would be the negative of this image?
PS:
No, that can't be said. However, certainly maybe I would not highlight/reveal that footprint at all, that is I would have to totally remove ... I would have all the bleach, or all of whatever there was beneath, stuck to the sole, and so thus have a negative.
MC:
And so have a negative, perfect, this is what I wanted ...
PS:
However, on the contrary the most logical thing that one can obtain is that I see a uniform background, that is, if one has walked barefoot on a flooring washed with bleach, for example, and not rinsed well, so a bit of bleach has remained, I would expect logically to see precisely nothing, because the bleach is uniformly distributed, indeed the negative of this ... that is, it is not possible that I stick on the surface, like marmalade, all the bleach [that is] underneath [the sole]. That does not seem reasonable at all to me. There. We are talking about molecules, not of ... I don't know, of hairs or of things that are so to speak macroscopic. We are talking of atoms, in fact, more even than of molecules, because it is a case of atoms of metal, so I don't think it would be possible. [58]
GM:
Excuse me for turning back a moment, that photo ....
PS:
This one?
GM:
On the right, indeed, there are areas that are more highlighted, and those others that are ...
PS:
Yes, these.
GM:
So it can be said that these belong to different reagents?
PS:
Ah! Good question! It could be so, yes, but it could also be simply something diluted.
GM:
Diluted.
PS:
Let's suppose that this is of blood, so these prints we have actually reacted with blood. If here I have very small traces of blood, much more washed away, I might also have this image. That is, I cannot exclude it. However, indeed, if it is not blood, it could be something else, something, let's say, that in fact gives off a less intensive fluorescence.

Now, let's pass to the part that concerns principally, finally, the technical tests/verifications carried out in the laboratory, so the part of/concerning the analytical results obtained. This part, I felt it was useful to split it up into two parts: one that is in fact this one, in which there will be in effect the list of all the traces, of all the exhibits/pieces of evidence from which these traces were extrapolated, and of all the results obtained from each trace, from each sampling. Then there is a second part, final, in which in effect on some of these results were carried out ... so I will show in a more [59] in-depth manner the analytical results obtained in terms of ... do you remember the graph of peaks? That is called an electropherogram. Perhaps you read it, but I did not tell you. So from the point of view of the in-depth analysis of the electropherogram, that is, [the electropherogram] associated to the trace that is considered useful, in other words of the trace that is, in fact, analysed. There were choices made: not everything is shown, either because there were 460 traces, so that would be really too much, too long to do it for all the traces. Some of the, shall we say, more significant [traces] were chosen, from the point of a possible reconstruction of the dynamics of the events, and of that which has been arrived at from the point of view of the investigations. So a choice was made of some traces. Obviously everything, however, is contained in full in the paper technical report that was then deposited with the Judicial Authority, so something is shown that in reality, however, is entirely complete. So, this, that which in fact you see in the image, is a summary description. This slide - and the others, obviously - from/of where in effect the exhibits/pieces of evidence were discovered, so the sources of these exhibits/pieces of evidence and obviously of the related traces found on each exhibit/piece of evidence, that were obtained during the course of the technical activities, and also of the investigative activities, thus the [crime-scene] searches, carried out either through our crime-scene inspections or else by the searches executed by the Perugia Flying Squad. So we begin, precisely, with the victim's apartment and we will speak about all the exhibits/pieces of evidence, biological traces more than exhibits/pieces of evidence take from the [60] body of the victim, of Meredith Kercher, about the room where the cadaver was found, so the room belonging to Meredith, the small bathroom, the big bathroom of the same apartment, the room used by Knox Amanda, the room used by Romanelli Filomena, the flooring of the living room/kitchen corner, the flooring of the corridor, and then subsequently we will proceed to the technical crime-scene inspection carried out in the apartment used by Sollecito Raffaele and to the personal effects acquired from him following the search carried out by the Perugia Flying Squad, then we will proceed to the technical crime-scene inspection carried out in the Audi A3 car, also owned by Sollecito Raffaele, and then the crime-scene inspection in the studio-flat used by Guede Rudy Hermann and the personal effects acquired following sequestration/confiscation. Since the information to be given for every exhibit/piece of evidence, for every trace, was very diverse, I considered it would be useful to highlight - using little dots and asterisks, which I hope you will be able then to see from time to time, but maybe I will point them out to you myself - some information relative to every exhibit/piece of evidence. So for example, if you see a little brown dot in the tables/lists that you will be shown, it means that the exhibit, the trace, was obtained during the course of the crime-scene inspection of 2-4 November, so the crime-scene inspection at the house, so I will not specify that. Or perhaps if it is necessary I will specify it, however, if you see this little dot you will be able to grasp where that exhibit/piece of evidence comes from. Thus, if you see this little blue dot, it is the exhibit/piece of evidence, trace, relative to the crime-scene inspection of 18 December, also in the [61] house of the victim. Then this asterisk, that maybe can be seen as a bit small, it is a green asterisk and it means, it indicates an exhibit/piece of evidence that was transmitted to me in [my] laboratory by the Perugia Flying Squad of the Perugia Police Headquarters [Questura]. This fuchsia-pink asterisk, on the contrary, is an exhibit/piece of evidence acquired and transmitted by the Provincial Laboratory of the Forensic Police of the Perugia Questura to the laboratory of the Forensic Police [in Rome]. Thus these are, shall we say, visual indications to remind me and to remind you, and to indicate to you where the various exhibits/pieces of evidence which we will speak of were discovered. Let's begin with the tables/lists of results. As you can see, in this table/list all the exhibits/pieces of evidence were taken during the course of the crime-scene inspection of 2-4 November, because the little dot is brown. They are samples relative to the victim's body, and in the first column is always indicated the exhibit/piece of evidence and the trace. So this is a summarized description of what the exhibit/piece of evidence was, so vaginal swab, rectal swab, presumed piliferous structures, samples from under fingernails and so on. Then there will be the numbering of the exhibit/piece of evidence with the relative traces - as I said earlier, A, B, C, are the traces. In other words, the points of the exhibit/piece of evidence where I go to [take a] sample, while the 12, 13, 15, 16 and so on are the cataloguing of the exhibit/piece of evidence. So that exhibit/piece of evidence in the laboratory is indicated as exhibit/piece of evidence 12, exhibit/piece of evidence 13, and so on. Then there are, in fact, the related alphabetical letters with which I indicate the traces, and then there's the type of trace. So in the central column, the type of trace is, for [62] example, I'll point it out to you with the mouse, presumed exfoliated/desquamating epithelial cells or else seminal fluid. This is for example an example of type of trace. Then there's the genetic result in the column on the right: so there's the victim and maybe the trace, so A, B, C. In this case, now, I'll explain to you because there's A1 and A2, then for example the other trace has given the genetic profile of Guede. Now we come in a more systematic manner: it's only to give you an indication on how this table and the following ones will [be] read, subsequently. So, the colours that you see in the background a bit different from the rest of the [table] boxes/cells, would be gridlines if you could see it, but you don't see it. In effect, it is to show which is the trace whose genetic profiles are then investigated in greater depth later in the second part, which I spoke about to you earlier. So some of these exhibits/pieces of evidence will then be the object of more detailed analyses, so with the electropherogram and also a photo, because for reasons of practicality and in order to contain/curb/the description/account of [i.e. given in] my report. In effect the photo is not shown for every exhibit/piece of evidence. Obviously, if someone is interested, there's the CD on which is reported/given all the photographic attachments that form part of the technical report and thus if in some case there is a need, maybe at the end, either of a piece, let's say, of the results, or else at the very end of the account, we can look at this or that exhibit/piece of evidence as I photographed it in the laboratory, so it was then acquired and then subjected to analysis. On the contrary, in fact, in the parts highlighted with various colours [63] were also shown instead either the sites, so the specific place of the crime-scene inspection where that trace was found or where the exhibit/piece of evidence was taken, and [sic] or that same exhibit/piece of evidence photographed in the laboratory.

Let’s go for a little moment to say a bit, because only in this we will find A1 and A2, A1 and A2 [sic]. So the vaginal and rectal swabs carried out on the victim’s body were three [in number], that I identified as A, B and C. So three vaginal and three rectal [swabs], A1 and A2 in both cases means that we have proceeded with a particular extraction analysis on only one of these three swabs: this is an analysis that in technical terms is called differential because it tends … as in fact I already told you earlier for another question, in cases of sexual aggression we have a mixed seminal fluid, so spermatozoids, cells from the victim, there is a procedure by which it is possible to separate these two cellular portions, thus to have on the one hand the spermatozoids and on the other hand the epithelial cells from the victim’s vagina or rectum, because these two types of cells are very different from a morphological point of view. Thus, shall we say, they are separated by means of analytical techniques in an fairly clear-cut manner. And so A and A2 [sic] mean that A1 is the portion of one type, perhaps the female portion, and A2 maybe is the male portion of this initially single extract. This is what it means. You will find it only in these cases, precisely, of vaginal and rectal swabs. In this type of analysis it must be highlighted that no seminal fluid was found, so the specific test [64] for seminal fluid is negative; and the genetic results carried out on these traces, that at this point are four for each of these exhibits/pieces of evidence is [sic: “are”; i.e. the genetic results are]: the victim was found in portion 1, so obviously on the female part of the vaginal swab; on swab B and swab C; the genetic profile of Guede was found only as far as the analysis for the Y chromosome is concerned, this is a point on which it is worthwhile dwelling on for a little moment. You recall that a few slides ago I mentioned to you the fact that the Y is specific to the male part of a mixed DNA, and that it is possible in this way to analyse a mix in its male part. In this case, and it is not particularly infrequent, since the DNA of the victim is overabundant by a factor of many compared to the smaller one – obviously, that is a posteriori/in retrospect, looking at the results we can affirm this – of the male [portion], we, in [by means of] genetic analysis in general, the one [analysis] that sees all the DNA as a result of a technical fact that happens in the PCR in the first cycles of amplification we do not see, that is we, the PRC, the analysis, does not manage to highlight the male part, that is nonetheless present, obviously. On the contrary, when one specifically analyses the Y, shall we say, one must analyse more or less blindly, because I have no element to establish beforehand/a priori whether there is or is not any male DNA, it is an attempt if, shall we say, I have the idea, since it is a vaginal swab, [that] although it is negative for seminal fluid, there might be a hope that it might, in fact, have happened that the male DNA, while not being of a spermatic origin, is nonetheless present, perhaps for other reasons, from [65] other origins, and only the haplotype has been highlighted. Remember the genetic profile of the Y of Guede Rudy Hermann, so in trace B, thus in the complete profile, that is in the total extract of trace B that I had [the] victim, in reality it is as though a tiny bit of male DNA was hidden, that was highlighted only as the Y trace, of Guede, while instead the negative traces were the portion … in swab A the portion, shall we say, male in inverted commas, so there was no male DNA in that swab. And then also in the portion, shall we say, the analysis carried out on the third swab, the C, did not give – see C – did not give anything other than the victim’s genetic result and [was] negative for the Y that was specifically carried out. I don’t know if this part is clear.

We can analyse the Y in general in mixed [samples], thus [in order] to highlight the male DNA, but in some cases since the analysis of the Y looks at only this, it focalizes only on that chromosome, ignoring the rest, it is so to speak a great deal more sensitive. That is, it ignores the female DNA and sees only the male DNA, and so it is not that there’s no remaining DNA, that is, there’s only the Y chromosome: that, frankly, is improbable, at least, it’s impossible to think. However, let’s say, it is such a small amount that with respect to the female DNA it is not possible to see it with the normal method of PCR.
MC:
So, Doctoressa, excuse me. In order to simplify even more: in the vaginal swab was found the haplotype, the Y chromosome, but because it was your choice … since you [66] said earlier that for the exaltation [sic. i.e. enhancement] of DNA and for the exhalation [sic] of just the Y chromosome, two different kits are used.
PS:
Yes.
MC:
So it was your own choice, expected [sic. Perhaps should have be “given”?] the location, shall we say, of the biological material to be tracked down, and also the check/verification to be done from the investigative point of view, that is if were to give or not …
PS:
Yes, that is, if the victim had nonetheless had a sexual contact with someone, or else not.
MC:
So it was important to verify if there was biological material from a man, and this could be characterized more easily with a search for just the Y chromosome, is that right?
PS:
Let’s say it is really a last resort. That’s right, that’s right. That is, it is not done routinely in all the DNA that we attribute to a woman, there. One cannot do it routinely. There’s not really any logical criterion and also, obviously, the costs and that time would be prohibitive. So one chooses a few particular exhibits/pieces of evidence, because in a case of the violent death of a Young woman it is possible to imagine that there was nonetheless a sexual basis to the dynamics of the event.
MC:
And you chose this because since, let’s say, the biological material had been taken from the vagina, the biological material of the victim prevailed/was most prevalent for obvious reasons…
PS:
Of the victim, perforce/by necessity. [67]
MC:
And so you chose the kit for the Y chromosome because it is more sensitive with respect to the kit for seeking DNA in general.
PS:
Yes, yes. This analysis was carried out also without any results on the rectal swab, so the analysis of the specific Y chromosome was carried out also on all three rectal swabs, however it did not give a positive outcome. Then there were the piliferous structures that I remind you [of], indeed presumed [piliferous structures], because they seemed to be wool fibres. We are not a product analysis laboratory, however looking at them under the microscope, they seemed to be fibres of wool those [fibres] that were taken by Dr Lalli at the time at when the cadaver was discovered, and a first visual, shall we say, inspection of the cadaver was carried out, and so these fibres were found that could maybe have been piliferous structures and [they] were taken. However they gave no result.
MC:
Drssa, excuse me. Since the exhibits/pieces of evidence were very numerous, and since anyhow the negative or positive [result] is already pictured in the charts…
PS:
Maybe I’ll just focus only on something.
MC:
Go to the exhibits/pieces of evidence, shall we say, between inverted commas, [that are] positive, and then maybe if we have to return to the negatives we’ll return, but they are already shown, ok?
PS:
Yes, I think they are fairly clearly, in short, visible. Then there are the subungual [under the fingernails] samples taken from the right hand and the left hand on the victim’s body, and [for] all five, [68] for each of the two hands, the samples showed obviously only the DNA of the victim.
MC:
the subungual samples means that you analysed the nail?
PS:
Yes, the nail, however it was, shall we say, a very very short nail, so presumably she was not able to scratch her aggressor or her aggressors in a meaningful way…
MC:
To the extent in short that [she] could remove biological material [from the aggressor].
PS:
To the extent of removing skin, [or] let’s say, material, because it was, let’s say, closely attached [adhered] to the phalange, so it was a short nail, even though it was elongated/oblong, but it was short, shall we say, in the sense that it was perfectly attached/adhered, so there was very little to be expected, there now. Then the haematic swab from the victim, [which] I carried out in the largest wound on the victim, and that was used by me for the attribution of all the genetic profiles of the victim to the victim, because if you recall before the DNA there is an analysis of comparison. I must always have a DNA with a name and surname in order to be able to say “This is from that person” or “This is not from that person”. So for me, obviously, it has to be an absolutely certain source. In this case, the haematic swab was carried out in the largest wound on the victim, so going towards the inside with the swab seemed to me absolutely beyond any possible error. Let’s turn to look a bit closer at the results obtained from the exhibits/pieces of evidence from the victim’s room. I put here, shall we say, some images that maybe might be useful to us in [69] case we want to put some exhibit/piece of evidence in some precise point, that is, situate it in the scene of the crime. The images can’t be seen perfectly, however they give at least an idea. Here, in effect, a significant result among all the exhibits/pieces of evidence, so you see there is a glass tumbler, a bra, a towel [that is] green-coloured, a light colour, a beige towel, a white sheet, three pieces of toilet paper, a ball of cotton wool, a piliferous structure, these were found on the desk: the only significant one, let’s say, from the investigative point of view of course, because they are all significant for some reason [or another], is this one extrapolated from the bra that we took, [as] I am showing you, in this point of the room, so at the feet of the victim, near the threshold of the room, with the door that is in effect over here. So we found in a total of 6 samples taken, so from A to F, we found on trace B the Y chromosome, also here only the Y chromosome, not the complete mix, attributable to Guede Rudy Hermann.
MC:
And trace B, can you remind us what point of the …
PS:
This, as you can see, is highlighted in a lighter colour, for which [reason] it is one of these exhibits/pieces of evidence that we will see then see, subsequently, as an in-depth analysis.
MC:
Ok. Ok.
PS:
So for right now, I will just continue.
MC:
Yes, ok. [70]
PS:
Obviously, in this case, also because, since the bra is in a particular condition/state, [as] you will see, or if you have not already seen it, it was clearly torn, because it had the straps that were actually torn and a portion of the back also cut, at least, there was a clean cut, so it led one to think that it had been cut: it was, let’s say, a particularly interesting exhibit/piece of evidence, for which [reason] also in this sample, as in the vaginal and rectal swabs, the analyses on the same extracts of DNA were carried out. So I did not do other samplings, but still on the DNA containing the samples A, B, C, D, E, F, the analysis for seeking the Y chromosome was also carried out and all the traces gave negative results except for B, which was attributed precisely to Guede Rudy Hermann. All these other traces are [of] relatively little significance, some [were] negative, many give the profile of the victim, and all contained human haematic substance plus various piliferous structures. Some gave positive results, as here; some gave negative results. Because obviously the piliferous structure, in order to give a positive, must have the entire bulb, in a phase, let’s say, of its vital cycle of good quality, so in a phase that is called Anagen [i.e. growth phase], in other words it retains all its follicle cells intact: a hair that falls [is shed] naturally does not have this bulb formed of these vital cells, for which reason it is not analysable, and for which reason the bulb of a hair that is pulled out has a good likelihood of being analysable from the point of view of nuclear DNA. A bulb that comes from [71] a spontaneously shed hair, because our hairs fall out spontaneously, let’s say normally, cannot be used for this type of genetic analysis.

Here, there is not much that is significant, [or] particularly important, to say, except that this pair of underpants/knickers belonging to the victim, also found at the feet of the cadaver, turned out to be negative to seminal fluid. It was analysed with UV rays: UV rays are a method that we use to highlight, also with fluorescence, but it is a fluorescence that is different from Luminol, in order to highlight possible traces of seminal fluid. Because to the naked eye, often the traces of seminal fluid are not absolutely visible if they are not particularly abundant. On the contrary, a trace subjected to UV shows a fluorescence that may make one think that there might be seminal fluid, so that analysis was carried out.

Just as an aside, that gummy substance, of a whiteish colour, turned out to be not gum, but one of those substances that stick to walls to hold photos, papers. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen them. On the contrary, for us, since it had a white colour, it was initially identified as chewing gum, that is as chewingum [in English in original]. Instead, since it then had a negative result for salivary substance and also to genetic analysis, it is clearly not chewing gum.

Here, I will go on ahead, because there is not much to … There. I would like to underline that on the jeans/denim trousers, which were found also next to the victim, at the victim's feet, there were numerous samples taken, but all of the victim’s blood. This is [72] particular because the jeans were found inside-out, so that makes one think that the jeans had been … either that the victim had in a rather laborious way taken them off herself and … let’s say, taken them off inside out, or else they had been taken off inside out by someone else; also because there are copious bloodstains, especially on the upper part, that is on the part of the waist-band, and also traces of blood that do not seem to be from rubbing/foot-shuffling, shall we say, from secondary application/apposition, on the inside of the jeans, so on the part that then became external.
GCM:
On the reverse.
PS:
On the reverse. Exactly. That would make one think that these drips, these rather thick/substantial/sizeable stains of blood, had occurred, had been deposited during or directly after the criminal event [in] itself, because otherwise it ought to have been rubbed/scraped rather than stained in such an evident manner on the inside. I just wanted to point that out to you, but there were no significant results.

The present proceedings were paused/suspended.}}

The present proceedings were resumed.

GCM:
(Incomprehensible because out of reach of the microphone).
MC:
We were examining the various exhibits/pieces of evidence, the various traces. So we may continue. [73]
PS:
Yes, in the victim’s room, so here there were no particular results to be highlighted: they were all samples of human haematic substance, taken from the various points of the victim’s room – door handle, door “leaf” [i.e. door panel], left-hand “shoulder” [i.e. upright or internal divider] of the wardrobe, and so on, flooring near the radiator, drips at the base of the desk, here too [it was] all the victim’s blood. Here we have as a significant exhibit/piece of evidence the little piece of cloth with hooks that was found like the preceding one, another sampling was made on the wall facing the door – one had already been taken there, that gave as a genetic result the genetic profile, in fact, of the victim. Let’s say, our intent in carrying out the second sampling during this crime-scene inspection was to try to see if it was possible to determine the genetic profile maybe of the person who had affixed [i.e. left] that presumed print of two phalanges, in truth ….
MC:
We were talking about that one [fingerprint(s)] on the wall…
PS:
On the wall, exactly.
MC:
Which the Court will certainly recall. It seems to me that over the ... between the bed and the nightstand.
PS:
Yes, in effect between the bed and the nightstand there was a very visible, oblong haematic trace that seemed to bring to mind two fingers and perhaps the upper part of a third finger. Clearly, it is very evident that this trace was then rubbed downwards, so obviously, supposing – but without being 100% sure about it – that it was not the victim, covered in blood, herself who put this pseudo-print, shall we say this trace, there, let’s say the intention was to see whether it was possible, perhaps on the end part of this big haematic trace, so on the rubbed bit, so we understand each other, if it was possible to find traces of skin, of epithelial cells that very probably were nonetheless left by whoever rubbed [it] and by whoever put that print there.

However, these other two samples that were carried out did not give any genetic results. Indeed, I recalled earlier, I made mention of, the piece of cloth with the little hooks, that was also found during the course of the second crime-scene inspection, and this also, you see, shall we say the frames/boxes are lighter/more clear than the other ones: the genetic result will be the object of a later in-depth analysis. As is clear from the genetic result, the victim is … the DNA extrapolated from the actual little piece of cloth, whereas the trace B is constituted by the little hooks: so from the two little metal hooks there was given a mixed genetic result: the victim plus Sollecito Raffaele, both as far as the complete analysis of the DNA is concerned, so as a true mix shall we say, as we saw earlier, initially, and as [regards] the genetic result of the Y haplotype characterization, so the genetic profile of the Y.

Let us continue, and here we will have all the exhibits/pieces of evidence that were, in fact, acquired during the course of the second crime-scene inspection, except for that exhibit/piece of evidence that is a small handbag in brown imitation leather that was present in the victim’s room and was transmitted to our office as an exhibit/piece of evidence by the Perugia Flying Squad. A sample taken on this exhibit/piece of evidence gave a negative result, whereas the two exhibits/pieces of evidence which we will go into in depth on in our presentation of the results were this other coloured handbag in imitation leather, catalogued as exhibit 166, that was found the first time it was placed on the mattress in fact in the victim’s room; the second time it was found, if I don’t remember incorrectly, in the wardrobe, positioned within the wardrobe. The sky-blue sweatshirt that forms exhibit 171 was involved/affected by the sampling of four traces; A, B, C, and D. This also, we will see it in greater depth later, gave as a genetic result … similar results. Both the handbag and the sweatshirt also gave, besides the DNA of the victim, in trace A, also gave the DNA of Guede Rudy Hermann as a genetic mix. This result is confirmed also by the analysis of the haplotype of the Y chromosome, also carried out on the same trace. The other exhibit/piece of evidence that I spoke to you of, the sweatshirt, gave as a total genetic result, precisely of the total DNA, so the genetic profile of the victim on all the four DNA extracts drawn from these traces, and only as far as trace B is concerned, which we will then see, [which] is the left cuff of this sweatshirt, it gave as a genetic result the genetic profile of the Y chromosome. Then all the other three remaining traces, so A, C, and D, were negative to the analysis for the Y chromosome. We have already spoken of this.

The victim’s room effectively ends the analysis with a beige handbag, in cloth, that was also transmitted to the offices of the Forensic Police [76] by the Perugia Flying Squad, who had acquired it as an exhibit/piece of evidence during the course of a search, and this exhibit/piece of evidence gave as a result the haematic trace of the victim and the genetic profile of the victim.

Let’s turn now to the small bathroom. These are some images of the crime-scene inspection. And going a bit, let’s say, faster, but not too much because there are many results that are on the contrary interesting, we have all these traces in the second part as results that are, let’s say, analysed in depth. We have the little mat with the haematic traces of the victim in three samplings. We have the panel of the light switch. So this, so we understand each other, these two switches/buttons had … you cannot see them, because the lighting conditions are not ideal, but there are haematic traces, of diluted blood shall we say, of blood mixed presumably with water, because it is pinkish in colour; there’s the victim’s blood. Then there’s a sampling on the front part of the tap of the sink/washbasin, that gave as a genetic profile the profile of Knox Amanda, and as/like a sampling done on the edge of the bidet drain, where there was in fact a clearly visible haematic trace, there was found the genetic profile of the victim and of Knox, so a genetic mix. Here as also on the container of cotton buds/Q-tips that was present on the sink/washbasin. I point out to you: this is the cotton bud [container] and this is the front part of the tap where we found blood and thus the genetic profile of Knox Amanda.

Let’s move on. Also the drip in the inside of the sink was also of blood that seemed, shall we say, diluted, that is, it was pinkish, there you are: it gave as type of trace human haematic substance, and as genetic result a mix of victim plus Knox. The piliferous structure was not useful. There is an haematic substance on the toilet-seat cover that gave the victim[‘s profile] and then also on the door, on the doorframe there’s the victim’s genetic profile. Another presumed haematic substance that on the contrary was ascertained to be negative – it in fact gave a negative genetic result – was taken in the area near the toilet drainpipe.

Let’s turn now to the big bathroom, so the other bathroom positioned diagonally with respect to the victim’s room. These are some images. In the toilet, inside the toilet, was found both a fragment … in fact, two fragments, to be precise, two fragments of toilet paper and a sampling of faeces – the toilet paper gave a genetic profile both of total DNA and of the Y chromosome, [with] the profiles belonging to Guede Rudy Hermann, while the faeces did not give any results either for the DNA analysis, nor for Y analyses. Then there were two lilac towels, evidently very soaking, very wet, that were acquired by the Perugia Flying Squadron from inside the washing machine. I don’t know if they can be seen. They are these [ones].
MC:
Yes.
PS:
On these exhibits/pieces of evidence three samplings were carried out, but they didn’t give any negative [sic] result, as also [was the case] with a grey-coloured hairdryer that was seized by the Flying Squad, that gave a negative result and thus absence of haematic substance. [78]
MC:
Excuse me, Drssa. We would like [you] to explain why the faeces, which we also appreciated photographically ...
PS:
And you will appreciate them again, because they are …
MC:
Despite the fact that there was a fair quantity, they gave instead a negative result as far as DNA and the Y chromosome are concerned?
PS:
Because faeces are absolutely very little suited for genetic analysis in that, although they have – because [while] certainly many intestinal epithelial cells are in fact dragged [out], shall we say, from the intestinal transit, obviously there’s also a very strong bacterial component that clearly makes, in fact, as I told you earlier, the DNA becomes chopped up by the microorganisms present in the surroundings, [so] it is equally chopped up and thus degraded by the good bacteria normally contained within the intestine, so faeces give … that is, in my experience, I have never found any genetic profile, and I think it is truly very, very improbable that they [faeces] can give one, there you go …
GM:
Drssa, excuse me…
PS:
Whereas instead…
GM:
Yes, go on. Finish, and then I’ll do …
PS:
I wanted to say, whereas instead the fragments of toilet paper were sampled taking care to avoid the areas that were particularly soiled with faeces, because otherwise we would have had the same problem. So they were sampled [79] in a manner so as not to take the completely white [parts of the] paper, no, because perhaps it had not been in contact with the skin of the person who had used it, [but] thus by making a mediation, let’s say: seeing an area less soiled with faeces and sampling in that area. Because, obviously, the toilet paper had been used, how to say, for rubbing/wiping and so it is very, very probable that it might contain epithelial cells that obviously don’t just naturally leave the skin, as normally happens, but are mechanically removed by this action of wiping/rubbing that is normal in the use of toilet paper. So, this is why two exhibits/pieces of evidence that are similar in certain aspects then gave different results.
GM:
Listen, Drssa. Excuse me. With regard to the light switch in the small bathroom, you observed/inspected the haematic trace.
PS:
Yes, two small haematic traces.
GM:
Do you recall in what position the switch was?
PS:
Yes. So when we found them – and this can also be seen subsequently in the, shall we say, special part that will be like an in-depth analysis part – the switches were in effect in the raised position. In other words, they were off. Because otherwise, obviously, we would have found them in the moment when there was light, so the following morning. However the traces were situated on the point on which one presses in order to switch on [the light], so they were raised. But this can also be seen in a very clear way in the photo, so they were raised and the lights were out/off, because I found [them] in the morning and the bathroom was thus, just as it had been found obviously, so they were out. However the samplings are in the lower part, that is these pinkish drips are in the, let’s say, low part of these two buttons/switches, for which reason obviously if they were affixed/put there, it is because someone pressed on them [the switches].
GM:
Pressed on them to switch the light on?
PS:
Clearly. I can’t see another explanation.
GM:
Ok. Thank you.
PS:
You’re welcome. Obviously also the fragments of toilet paper will be dealt with in the in-depth part. Then, in fact, the hairdryer we spoke of, and also the towels. Let’s turn now to the room of Knox Amanda. In effect, this room was subjected to a technical crime-scene inspection exclusively in the second crime-scene inspection, so the one on 18 December, and some exhibits/pieces of evidence were instead sent to the Forensic Police service following a personal search, and so sequestration/confiscation of the objects that the person from the Perugia Flying Squad clearly had with him/her, and so we have a portion of cushion cover, a pair of socks, a sample of presumed haematic substance, that on the contrary all turned out to be negative. Also the shoes analysed, obviously on the part of the sole, all turned out negative, except for one sample, sample C, that on the contrary is the profile of Knox Amanda. However [81] all are negative for haematic substance, like the multicolour handbag that on the contrary gave as a genetic result the profiles, in samples A, B and C, of Knox Amanda, but it is not haematic substance.

Then we analysed the room of Romanelli Filomena where a few objects were also found. So there is a piliferous structure that in effect is also highlighted here, on the lower frame, so it is indicated with the letter R, and [it] was acquired and [produced as an] exhibit/piece of evidence by the Provincial Laboratory of the Perugia Forensic Police, as was the presumed haematic substance sampled on the wooden part of the window, so from this part, the S. Both of these exhibits/pieces of evidence have negative results to the genetic analysis. Then during the second crime-scene inspection, on the suggestion, on the wishes of the party’s technical expert/consultant, Professor Saverio Potenza, the big stone and the two fragments that were in fact found in the room, that were positioned on flooring, and still on his indication at the moment the operation began, an area was highlighted where the consultant requested a sampling, which is in fact sample A, and which gave a negative result.

Let’s turn now to the living room-kitchen corner. These are some images of these locations, and from this area six cigarette stubs were taken as exhibits/pieces of evidence from the ashtray on the table. Of these six cigarette stubs, three gave as a result the same genetic profile of a person that I called Man 7, so a person of male sex who, since I didn’t have the possibility of comparing [him] with other [82] involved individuals of male sex, shall we say, other than the persons that we know, remained a person unknown. Then a cigarette stub was found, still in the same ashtray, that I indicated with D, where there was found salivary substance and the mixed genetic profile of Sollecito Raffaele and Knox Amanda Marie. Cigarette stubs E and F gave the result of a genetic profile of a woman, indicated as Woman 3, on both the cigarette stubs that gave no match for any person revealed during the investigations. Then, in the living room-kitchen corner, there were five samplings of haematic substance taken from the flooring. These are, in effect, those shoe prints that bit by bit became more faded [i.e. less visible], that were headed towards the entry-door: it is all human blood from the victim.

There is the final sampling precisely in the vicinity of the entry that clearly being probably too small, quantitatively speaking, gave a negative result. Then there’s the corridor of the apartment, the corridor that in fact goes from the small bathroom to the dividing door between the bedrooms and the living room-kitchen corner. Here also there are samplings of haematic substance in a pseudo-circular shaped [print/stain] on the flooring that gave the victim as a genetic result, being the 119, the 120, the 122. Here, there were numerous piliferous structures under the drying rack that were sampled by me during the course of the first crime-scene inspection still, in the first phases: and they gave in effect only one positive result in the piliferous structure 1, and negative results in all the others… that is, [of] the other sampling [83] [of] useful piliferous structure that was analysed, seven turned out to be not useful in that obviously they either had the bulb in a telogen phase, or they didn’t have a bulb at all, perhaps [because] they were broken or frayed [i.e. split].

This is another sampling that is in fact pseudo-circular. Then there is the mop [head], that is also highlighted here, that was found – also during the course of the second crime-scene inspection, whereas these are samplings carried out during the first crime-scene inspection – inside the cupboard that was in fact located in the corridor. Samplings were carried out, A and B, which both turned out to be negative, as also was the piliferous structure that was found caught [i.e. tangled] in the mop-head.

Then we turn to the results obtained from the Luminol test. This test was carried out during the course of the second crime-scene inspection, at the end of all the other activities, on the flooring of these areas; the room used by Romanelli Filomena, the room used by Knox Amanda, the corridor, the living room-kitchen corner, and the big bathroom. The outcome of these technical checks is in fact contained in this diagram, in this table/list. The sampling called L1 in the minutes/record of the crime-scene inspection is the victim, so it cannot be said with certainty if it is blood, naturally, because it is luminescent in Luminol but not … in fact, since Luminol has other possibilities for fluorescence, we can only say the genetic profile of the victim, so the victim’s DNA. There is also the sampling called L2 also in the room of Romanelli. Both were of a diffuse and intense luminosity, so there it was not possible to note/highlight a [84] particular luminescent form/shape. And this other sampling, the L2, gave as a genetic result the victim and Knox, obviously in a genetic mix. So both these traces will later be dealt with in a more in-depth manner in the second part. Then we have sampling L3 in Knox’s room, like also the other two, that gave the genetic profile of Knox. Again, we have L6, L7, L8 and L9. The sole important/outstanding result, which will in fact be dealt with later, is this one: the exhibit/piece of evidence 183, sampling L8 in the corridor, which gave as a result the victim plus Knox. And I bring your attention also to the form/shape that these samplings, these luminescences, had: this was, shall we say, more similar. It brought to mind the shape of a shoe, a shoe print. The others brought to mind more a human foot, as also [is the case] like the last one, the 184, that did not, however, give any result.

This is just a summary of the Luminol test and of the related genetic analysis. In Romanelli’s room two samplings were done. One gave the profile of the victim, the other gave a mixed profile of the victim plus Knox. [In] Knox’s room, the samplings, three genetic profiles of Knox. Corridor: four samplings, one mixed profile: victim plus Knox. The living room-kitchen corner was negative to the Luminol test, so it did not give a particular fluorescence in any particular point, and the same also [for] the big bathroom, [which] was negative to the test. This is a recap of the samplings carried out on the flooring of the whole of the victim’s apartment. Here obviously, you see written, reported, simply the numbers [85] of the samples, the rooms to which they refer and the genetic results. The little dots indicated negative results, so there was no genetic profile. The B indicates the profile of the victim, so all these had the profile of the victim, as did these, these negative profiles, so there is no genetic profile. These ones in blue/azure are the corridor. This, the 183, in fact we said [this is] mixed profile of victim plus Knox. Then the living room-kitchen corner; all these samplings were carried out. There are six samplings. One is a negative result. The others gave the genetic profile of the victim. Romanelli room: two samplings, these are the ones with Luminol: one of these has given the profile of the victim, the other [gave] mixed profile [of] victim plus Knox. The samplings in Knox’s room, revealed/highlighted with Luminol: all three [are] the profile of Knox. So in total on all the flooring in the house there were 26 samplings carried out.

Let’s turn now to the crime-scene inspection carried out in the apartment used by Sollecito Raffaele. The crime-scene inspection, I remind you, was carried out on the date of 13 November. There were various samplings carried out in various areas. There is not much of relevance, apart from the profile, shall we say, of Sollecito Raffaele, except the mix that was obtained in a sampling carried out on a pair of gloves, in fuchsia-coloured rubber. One of these samplings … that is, both the samplings gave as a result a mix, Sollecito plus Knox, but it is not of haematic substance. And the same also for the exhibits/pieces of evidence found and the samplings carried out on these from the little sponge, from a drainpipe under [86] the kitchen sink. The little sponge gave as a positive result to the genetic test the profile of Sollecito, but it is not haematic substance. The bedroom, this part of the results comes from highlighting/revealing with Luminol. So Luminol was carried out on the external door handle, two samplings on the flooring. The genetic profile of Sollecito plus Knox was found, even if this mix is a bit partial: a few alleles are missing from Sollecito Raffaele. There’s the highlighting with Luminol carried out in the bathroom. All the results for samplings 97, 98, 99 and 100 are negative. [Sample] 95 is presumed haematic substance, naturally, since we are dealing with Luminol. The genetic result is Sollecito plus Knox, while a sampling also on the flooring of the bathroom gave as a result the profile of Knox.

Again, kitchen, entryway/entry-hall, there is highlighting with Luminol of five samplings, all negative except .. there is a positive genetic result with regard to an individual, the DNA profile of an unknown individual who I called Man 6, which corresponds to the little mat/rug in the largest area.

Furthermore, we have also a few personal effects acquired by the Perugia Flying Squad that are also referable to Sollecito Raffaele. There’s a pair of Nike shoes on which, if I remember correctly, 14 samplings were carried out. It’s written: 14 samplings, all negative for haematic substance. Two positive traces were found, corresponding to sampling I: a profile of a male individual, Man 4, was found … excuse me, I [87] made a mistake: Sollecito is trace 1, male individual, Man 4, is trace P. All the others are in effect negative to the DNA test.

Then there's a knife, a [pair of] elasticated boxer shorts, and another penknife/switchblade knife. The penknife/switchblade knife, exhibit/piece of evidence 35: three samplings, negative; the elasticated boxer shorts, there was haematic substance on two samplings, and they were blood belonging to Knox; and on the contrary the penknife/switchblade knife, CRKC make/brand, of four samplings carried out they were almost all, all three, where haematic substance was sought, [gave a] negative, corresponding to trace C, which was, in effect, on the handle, so blood was not looked for, and the genetic profile Sollecito plus Knox was found corresponding to trace A, which is both as mixed DNA and as the Y chromosome. The male part is obviously attributable only to Sollecito. the other three traces [were] negative. This also will be paid attention to ["attenzionare" in It.], shall we say, in a particular manner, in the second part of the report.

Then we have, also, [the] exhibits/pieces of evidence acquired by the Perugia Flying Squad: a big knife of 31 centimetres length. Seven samplings were carried out on this. On the handle, corresponding to trace A, the genetic profile of Knox Amanda, and corresponding to a point on the blade, that we will later see as a photo, there is the genetic profile of the victim. All the other samples are all negative. Obviously haematic substance was sought in a specific manner in [the parts] corresponding to traces B, C, E and G, which are on the blade, and all four are negative for haematic substance. Then there [88] are various garments, various items of clothing, that were also acquired by the Flying Squad and are all negative to the genetic result, except for one rag/cloth: it appeared to be a cloth for dusting, for housework matters, that has on its inside, corresponding to sample A, the genetic profile of an unknown man, indicated as Man 5. Then we also have a pink plastic pail/bucket, [which was] negative for the four samples carried out; a pair of yellow gloves, also negative; all negative except for the tea cloth/dishcloth that has negative [results for] haematic substance, but the mixed genetic profile of Sollecito plus Knox. There's a little yellow sponge where there is a non-haematic trace of Knox, and a little yellow sponge, different from the preceding one naturally, that has a negative genetic profile and negative haematic substance. Some other objects from the apartment, all negative, except the plastic Coop-branded bag, exhibit/piece of evidence 194, that gave as a genetic result the profile of Knox Amanda in [the area] corresponding to the handles of the bag, so of presumed exfoliated/rubbed off epithelial cells and the A is negative to haematic substance. It is also negative as a genetic result. The other positive result is on exhibit/piece of evidence 224, a white towel with floral designs, and it gave as a genetic result the profile of Sollecito Raffaele, but it is not blood.

Again, we have other exhibits/pieces of evidence: towels, bathrobe, so all results that are either Amanda Knox, or are mixed Sollecito-Knox. There is another unknown man on the black T-shirt, whom I indicated [89] as Man 8. Another mix on the trousers: Sollecito plus Knox corresponding to trace A, whereas B and C are negative.

Let's turn now to the car, the crime-scene inspection of the car. In effect, this car was sampled both through classical sampling, how to say, without the assistance of any means [i.e. tools of investigation] except the forensic lights that highlight probable traces of haematic substance, either through the use of Luminol, so also inside [the car] the Luminol test was carried out, and various samples were made, on various points of the car, that all gave negative results. These are the traces that were revealed using the Luminol: they gave negative results, so either there was absolutely no blood, it is not absolutely ... in short, it is a false positive, or else the quantity of DNA is so small that it could not be used to give a genetic profile. All the rest is negative.

Finally, I think this is the last crime-scene inspection, there's the technical crime-scene inspection carried out on 20 November 2007 in the studio apartment used by Guede Rudy Hermann. There are various exhibits/pieces of evidence: towels, washing-machine filter, trousers, tickets. All gave either haematic substance or the genetic profile of Guede, as in the case of 148, 149, or else positive for the genetic test but negative for haematic substance, so the genetic profile of Guede, as also [is the case for] the ticket, however in this case the haematic substance is positive. Further piliferous structure were sampled from various parts of the apartment: all negative. All negative, also, the samplings carried out in the bathroom, of the fragments of an anorak laid on the bed, the tile grouting [90] of the kitchen flooring. There was also a presumed haematic substance revealed on the intercom/doorphone attached to the wall: all negative. There was also a Luminol test carried out here on the flooring and under the [bathroom] sink/washbasin. There's a presumed haematic substance that in fact gave as genetic profile that of Guede. There are personal effects that were acquired by the Perugia Flying Squad in a backpack that he had with him when he was arrested in Germany, so there's a pullover, a pair of trousers, in short, also here nothing of particular relevance except that on a few samples carried out the genetic profile is precisely that of the owner. So a pair of trousers, a pullover, a towel and a little brush/toothbrush, are in fact all exhibits/pieces of evidence that gave Guede as a profile.

This is a summary of all the biological activit[ies] carried out in this case. So in total, six technical crime-scene inspections were carried out, 228 exhibits/pieces of evidence were analysed, and on these exhibits/pieces of evidence, 480 traces, excuse me: 460 [traces], were analysed.

Now I will begin the in-depth part, so from this part onwards there are some results that are, shall we say, revealed/highlighted with respect to the others, where the genetic profile obtained shall be shown and also the sampling photos on the site of the crime-scene inspections and the exhibit/piece of evidence

photographed in the laboratory. These are the renowned vaginal swabs of the victim that we saw initially. All the traces are negative to the test for seminal fluid. I highlighted only trace B because this is the one that gave the genetic profile of the victim, on your left, and the Y profile [91] of Guede, which is this one highlighted on the right. This is the reference exhibit/piece of evidence, exhibit/piece of evidence 21, as you see. I don't know if you remember now, initially I said that in fact the file/dossier had the number 28-669. This is exhibit/piece of evidence 21, and this is precisely the label that you would see on every exhibit/piece of evidence with the relevant number. This, obviously, is the genetic profile of the victim. The little sky-blue bath mat was taken from this point, obviously under the sink, under the washbasin. This is the photo taken in the laboratory, so with our photography equipment perpendicular to the surface of ...
MC:
of support.
PS:
Of support [i.e. the work surface/work bench]. All these exhibits/pieces of evidence were photographed in this way and I did three samplings, as you see, A, B and C. All three of these samplings gave the genetic profile of the victim. These are the two traces, and this is the third: all victim's profile, victim's blood. Here is what I was saying, the two little switches are raised, that is they are pushed-in in the upper part and the samplings of blood, I think perhaps that you don't appreciate [sic] them [i.e. they are not evident to you]. They are more or less in this point and in this point, so they are more or less in the lower part of the switches. These samples gave as a genetic result of the analysis of trace A the profile of the victim. 24 [sic] sampling carried out on the front part of the tap of the washbasin that we saw earlier, positive to the test for human blood, profile Knox. [92]
MC:
I wanted to ask you, excuse me if I interrupt you. You said that as an element of comparison for the victim you took a swab from inside the largest wound, shall we say.
PS:
Yes.
MC:
Instead, for the comparison relative to the persons under investigation, to the persons at the time under investigation...
PS:
Yes, we will see that shortly. We will see it in a little while: there are salivary swabs, however since I put the numbering in ascending order, the comparisons are around [number] 30, so we will see them shortly.
MC:
Exactly. However, in order to understand that when you say Knox profile, it is because you had already examined the sample used as comparison.
PS:
As reference, certainly. So let's carry on. These in fact are the fragments of toilet paper from which the samplings A and B were taken. This is the point where both the traces on the toilet paper and also obviously the faeces beneath [them] were found, in the big bathroom, and both the samplings A and B gave as genetic profile the profile of Guede, and also as profile Y. Here they are here. These are the two salivary swabs taken from Sollecito Raffaele and transmitted by the Laboratory of the Forensic Police to the Perugia Questura. This is the profile, shall we say, the DNA, the complete profile. This is the profile of the Y. These, on the contrary, are the two salivary swabs taken from Knox Amanda, and this is the genetic profile, obviously only of the total DNA, because there is not present in the DNA [93] any Y [chromosomes]. This is the penknife/switchblade knife of which I spoke to you earlier. Four samplings were carried out in these points, and the only one that gave a positive genetic result is the sample A, so this, so we understand each other, on this ... I don't know how to define it, this coupling/hook, was something moveable, so as if it could be attached, I don't know, to a belt...
MC:
To close the...
PS:
Yes, in fact, I don't know how to define it.
GCM:
(incomprehensible because out of reach of microphone).
PS:
Yes, this is all this hook. Let's say sampling A was carried out in the [area] corresponding to this stain/mark, this red ring/aura that, however, is not blood. So maybe it might be another substance, and this sampling only gave the mixed genetic profile: Sollecito plus Knox.
MC:
So that mark/stain was not blood...
PS:
It was not blood.
MC:
Nonetheless on that ...
PS:
In this point, yes, because ...
MC:
In this point there was DNA of Sollecito and of Knox?
PS:
Mixed, yes. And precisely in confirmation of this, of the presence also of the DNA of Sollecito there was an analysis of the Y chromosome carried out that gave as genetic result the Y profile of Sollecito. This is the 36-centimetre long knife on which were carried out seven samplings, not all ...
MC:
The centimetres perhaps are 31 and the exhibit/piece of evidence is 36.
PS:
Yes. What did I say? [94]
MC:
You said 36 centimetres.
PS:
[I hope] you will excuse me. Soon I'll be able to say I've got there too! Exhibit/piece of evidence 36, 31 centimetres. These samplings, I was saying, were carried out in two separate work sessions, and in a first instance/moment three samplings, A, B and C, were carried out. So corresponding, shall we say, to the point of contact between the blade [and] the handle, so A; corresponding to this point of the blade, so near the tip but not on the tip, and on the other side ... in effect the equivalent point on the other side of the blade. Later, on the basis of the results obtained, which I will talk to you about, there were other samples, two on the blade and two on the handle, that were carried out.
MC:
This is the knife that was found?
PS:
In Sollecito's house, then transmitted by the Flying Squad. So the only traces that gave a genetic profile were traces A and B, which are both negative for human blood. Trace A gave the genetic profile of Knox, and it is in fact depicted/displayed in this electropherogram. And trace B gave the genetic profile of the victim, and is depicted/displayed in this electropherogram.
MC:
Let's reconnect them/make a connection between them also from the point of view of the point of the knife, so trace B?
PS:
Trace B was taken in this point, not on the basis of any relevant trace from a biological point of view that was, shall we say, visible to the naked eye. However, to the eye was visible, under considerable illumination in fact, a series of striations/scratches/scores were visible, of which one was particularly deep, between inverted commas. They were however striations, so fairly superficial, but clearly visible. These striations went ... they ran largely parallel to the upper part of the blade, so more or less they were parallel to this side. Towards the point, shall we say, they started to descend a bit, so they followed a bit the shape of the point/tip, however they were striations, anomalies in this metal that were visible to the naked eye under an intense illumination, whereas the point of A was sampled, of the handle naturally, as also the D, F, with the intention of possibly finding DNA of the person who had grasped that weapon. In particular, the point A was done in a particular point in which there is the "limit-switch" [sic: fine-corsa in original: perhaps the hand-guard?] of the hand, in other words if I grasp the knife and strike a blow, my hand naturally would tend to go forwards, in that point the knife is made in such a way as to not allow [prevent] such a thing, otherwise my hand would go onto the blade, and so there is a short tail. In short, this part that sticks out here that you see, the sampling was done precisely corresponding to this area, and it had a positive outcome [of] the genetic profile of Knox Amanda.
MC:
In other words, that most likely it is the area in which the hand...
PS:
Let's say, halts its advance/course and is also that where [the hand] rubs the most because ...
MC:
Precisely where there is the most friction because one [i.e. one's hand] must necessarily stop. [96]
PS:
There's most friction. There were other samplings, shall we say, attempted in order to confirm these genetic profiles that had already been found, but the outcomes were negative. This is the reference profile for the DNA of Guede Rudy, so it is a little brush/toothbrush found in his apartment, in his bathroom, so in effect I used this genetic profile that turned out to be identical both in point A, so on the little head/tip of the bristles, and in point B, where presumably he grasped the brush when he used it, was also found the same DNA both as a complete genetic profile and as a Y profile.
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because out of reach of microphone).
PS:
Yes, yes. Trace B. The one that I told you corresponded to this point with these scratches, these striations, shall we say, [that are] visible under a good illumination, changing the angle of the incident light with respect to the blade because, obviously, the blade reflects, so it creates shades/shadows, there you go, if there are imperfections present.
MC:
So on the blade there was found the profile of the victim?
PS:
Of the victim, yes, which is this one shown [here]. Then exhibit 59, the bra, I remind you was found a short distance from the feet of the cadaver, here there is an enlargement to highlight the point in which most likely a cut was carried out, because this truncation/breaking off of the cloth, in effect, is very clear-cut/precise/sharp. And this is the bra also photographed in the same method, so perpendicular, in our laboratories. As you can see, six samplings were carried out in various points, indeed seven, excuse me. We have two samplings on the cups, on the internal side, and the rest of the samplings, so four samplings were carried out on the straps that were clearly torn (off), because there were cotton threads that in fact stuck out from the evident tears; and sample B, that then is the one of the most interest. It was carried out on this portion of the elastic band that in effect passes from the lateral side of the woman's back right up to the back position, so ...
MC:
In other words, this point ...
PS:
This B, in effect.
MC:
This point B is the point next to the little missing piece?
PS:
Yes, exactly.
MC:
To the little piece that was then found separately?
PS:
Yes, in the back part, precisely, yes. So this area here, which in fact I've indicated with B, was the point in which from the genetic analysis there emerged the Y profile of Guede Rudy Herman, while the genetic profile of the total DNA, so the nuclear DNA, is only that of the victim, as [is the case] with the rest of the traces, because, I remind you, and if they are not reported as [part of the] in-depth analysis, all the other traces, so the A, C, D, E, and F, obviously gave the genetic profile of the victim, and so blood of the victim.

Here, let's go into the part about the exhibits/pieces of evidence from the bathroom, the small bathroom. So the edge of the bidet drain, I don't [98] know if you can appreciate [i.e. see it clearly] here: it's slightly enlarged: there's haematic substance. And this is the sampling carried out during the crime-scene inspection in order to collect this trace. The trace gave as a genetic result the mixed profile of victim plus Knox, and is positive for human blood. The same thing was done as an analysis on the cotton-bud container placed on the washbasin. There is an haematic trace, perhaps it is clearer on white paper, and this genetic profile extrapolated from this trace is a mixed profile victim plus Knox, and is positive for human blood. Again, there is an haematic trace that is also of a pinkish colour, so like the others, that was found on the part of the washbasin, on the left part of the washbasin, shall we say: it started from the upper part and went towards the drain, downwards. This trickling/dripping was ... perhaps it's clearer in this white part of the disk [NdT: of sampling/blotting paper]: it gave as a result human blood; and as a genetic profile, victim plus Knox. This is the other sampling that was carried out on the toilet-seat cover of precisely the toilet in the small bathroom. This is the sampling carried out during the crime-scene inspection that gave as a genetic result the victim's profile and human blood. This is the obvious trace on the door of the bathroom. In fact here, as can be seen, [is] a dribble/trickle: this is the trace taken on [swabbing/blotting] paper.
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because outside reach of microphone).
PS:
Yes, not exactly: it is the framework of the door, left side, not exactly on outside: it is the side that closes against the other part, against the frame, so this is the door frame [99] and this is the side part, shall we say, internal, there you go, seen so it may seem external. However if you close the door, perhaps it becomes ...
MC:
It disappears.
PS:
Yes, it disappears. Because here is the hinge, so the door turns/swings and makes this trickle/dribble end up next to this door-panel. This is the sampling carried out in precisely this crime-scene inspection: human blood, victim's profile. Then one of the cigarette stubs taken from the blue glass ashtray on the living room-kitchen corner table: this is the cigarette stub, I don't know why there's another photo here, but it's not here. The genetic profile obtained is the mixed one of Sollecito plus Knox, and this is the electropherogram. Then we have the little piece of cloth with the hooks. This is the position the exhibit/piece of evidence occupied during the course of the second crime-scene inspection, so when it was found. This is the enlargement, and here is in effect the piece of cloth as we photographed it before analysis in the laboratory. So we have indicated as sampling A the one on the cloth, and sampling B the two hooks. The genetic result on trace A is positive for human blood, victim's profile.
MC:
So on the cloth?
PS:
On the white cloth. And on trace B, that is, the hooks, the mixed profile victim plus Sollecito was found, and this result was later confirmed by the Y belonging precisely to Sollecito Raffaele. [100]
MC:
[What was] the nature of that trace?
PS:
Excuse me?
MC:
The biological nature?
PS:
The nature is not blood, so the hooks presumably have epithelial cells, but we cannot say that it is blood. Simply, because it had been worn by the victim, and then because nonetheless one of the two hooks was particularly deformed, I don't know if you can appreciate [i.e. see] that in this point, and so presumably it was the portion that was...
MC:
Forced.
PS:
Forced, pulled, that was subjected to traction. This is the handbag, exhibit/piece of evidence 166. In the first crime-scene inspection it was found on the mattress of the bed in the victim's room. This is the haematic trace that was sampled. This is the position that we took in order to indicate the handbag with a letter, but the handbag was found, as I said, in the wardrobe, if I don't remember wrongly, and the exhibit/piece of evidence X, in fact [during] the second crime-scene inspection: an haematic trace was found corresponding to point A, so this point [here], and the genetic profile detected/identified from this trace of human blood is a mixed genetic profile, victim and Guede, and this was confirmed by the analysis of the Y chromosome that revealed the profile of Guede. Again, the sky-blue sweatshirt, exhibit/piece of evidence 171: this sweatshirt was also taken during the course of the second crime-scene inspection. Here the four samplings taken from it are highlighted: the D corresponds to the zip, so in this point, then the A, [101] the B and the C [which] correspond, respectively, to a portion [of the sweatshirt] that is apparently without any haematic substance. The part A, and then B and C, corresponding, respectively, to the wristbands. The genetic result obtained from trace B is the genetic profile of the victim, and corresponding to this [one] there was found the genetic profile of only the Y of Guede.

Let's move now to the Luminol traces: the test carried out during the second crime-scene inspection on the flooring of various areas of the apartment. This is the trace revealed as exhibit/piece of evidence 176 in Romanelli's room, the room where there was the "casso" [NdT: typo? I believe the intended meaning is "break-in", as common - or less common - definitions for "casso" are unsuitable], just so we understand each other. Obviously the Luminol was carried out by [i.e. after] moving all these objects that were present on the flooring. This hooping/circling is to indicate more or less the zone in which sampling was carried out, because I recall that there was a fairly diffuse luminosity, so it was not clearly delineated in one point, and the trace gave as a result the DNA, the DNA of the victim. Again, still the same room, in a position moved closer towards the entrance, shall we say, in this area more or less, there was found, in fact, a luminescence that gave as a genetic result the mixed profile victim plus Knox. Then this one, precisely, the image that we have already seen earlier through the Luminol of the foot that was revealed along the corridor, this is the sampling carried out, so the little tube [NdT: "tubino" in Italian] in which the sampling was contained. The trace gave Knox as a genetic profile. This is another sampling that gave as a genetic profile the mixed profile victim plus Knox, still/also in the corridor, shall we say, [102] corresponding to the wall that separates the victim's room and Knox's, [so] let's say, on the floor straddling/in the middle between the two rooms.
MC:
Excuse me, Drssa. You said earlier that, since Luminol highlights various substances, [and] not only blood, you can't state with certainty the biological nature of these traces [that are] highlighted with Luminol. However, I ask you: during the biological crime-scene inspection, you sample[d] those traces there [that were] highlighted with Luminol, and found genetic profiles. If these traces had been produced by bleach, would you have found those genetic profiles?
PS:
No, because bleach destroys DNA.
MC:
Precisely. I say, if it had been different material, but of material that is nonetheless biological, let's not say blood, let's say generically biological material, whether that were rust, whether that were fruit juice, etc., would you have found genetic profiles?
PS:
No, the DNA is specific ... this analysis is specific for human DNA. We have said that. Done.
MC:
President, I would say that, for the moment, I have no further question[s] because for us the presentation is exhaustive. Obviously, I reserve [the right], after the cross-examination, to make ...
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because out of reach of microphone).
MC:
Thank you.

[103]}}


DEFENCE – Lawyer/Counsel Buongiorno

GB:
Drssa, first of all I wanted that – in completion of [i.e. in addition to] this introduction of yours that served first as [an introduction of] a general nature – you would specify [the following] for me: these DNA analyses are carried out in the laboratory of the Forensic [Police] in Rome?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Listen, what is the ISO 9001 quality certification?
PS:
It is a certification which we have been working towards for some months, for more than a year now. We have put into effect the procedures in order to obtain the quality certification. In other words, in the immediate future, perhaps before the summer, we hope, our laboratories will be accredited by a certifying body precisely in order to have the ISO 9001 quality certification. In other words, this certification certifies – I apologise for the tongue-twister words – that in effect, all our procedures, from the transport/handling of the papers, so of the documents that arrive in our offices, in our laboratories, to the conclusion of the work of, shall we say ... specifically in this case, of biology, but that also concerns other laboratories, follows [sic] very precise, standardized procedures that are, in effect, those that assure good practice, let's say, in the analyses and a good work practice. So any given step of work will follow the standards, in fact, of very precise procedures that are indicated by ...
GB:
In order to explain to the Court, because I maybe informed myself, who gives it, this 9001 certification?[104]
PS:
It's an external certification body.
GB:
Are there laboratories that already have this certification?
PS:
I think the laboratories of some universities, yes. Some universities have, in their analysis-laboratories in particular, certifications of this type. Then there's also another one that is actually specific...
GB:
Now we come to the second one. Now I say to you, for now I want to stop at the 9001. So the 9001 is a certification of quality, that is the procedures that you described earlier, at the beginning of your deposition, at the moment in which they were carried out, is it correct to say that they did not have the 9001 certification?
PS:
No, they didn't have it. We don't have the certification yet.
GB:
You don't have it yet.
PS:
We will have it in the near future.
GB:
For now, I am interested in defending him, then ...
PS:
Of course.
GB:
So, at that time, there was none. Then, I will turn to the other certification. If you could explain, this certification of which we spoke: for now, it is the certification ... the procedures are correct.
PS:
Yes.[105]
GB:
The sequence is that which I said to you: they are certified by a body. On the contrary, what is the ISO 17025 certification?
PS:
It is a certification regarding in particular the technical laboratory verifications/tests , so in terms, let's say, more specific ... how to say (inc.) to this standard, to this ISO, they are called tests [NdT: "testing and calibration" in ISO title]. So every laboratory test, thus every analysis that is carried out, has procedures. Not only the procedures are ... how to say, codified, but also all the instruments and apparatus/equipment that will have interaction with this analysis are certified. So I will have, I don't know, the calibration of the little scales that I'm using to weight a reagent, I will have the certification with regard to a reagent that I've used. That is, I will have the brochure that certifies for me that this reagent was produced in conformity with this quality standard, and so it is the whole chain of analyses that undergoes these laboratory analysis procedures specifically.
GB:
Having these certifications gives [a] guarantee of the goodness of the result?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
With respect to these two certifications, there's one of the two that is more significant than the other, the 9001 or the 17025?
PS:
From the point of view of laboratory work, certainly the 17025, which is more pertinent to the laboratory work.[106]
GB:
So it is correct to say, in order to explain it to them [i.e. the Court], that this 17025 looks at how something is weighed ... that is, precisely what you are doing.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Whereas the first one is the sequence of procedures?
PS:
Yes, let's say the flow of work, there you go, to say it in more general terms, the flow of work, because it also concerns precisely the transfer/handling of secretarial/administrative work, for example, so it has nothing to do with the laboratories. The 9001 is put into effect by various companies that also have nothing to do with ...
GB:
And the 17025, you are also going ahead with procedures in order to have it?
PS:
Yes, we are proceeding, let's say, in a follow-up/consecutive manner with respect to the 9001.
GB:
Because you don't have it yet. What has to be done to obtain these certifications?
PS:
Procedures have to be put into effect, things have to be put in writing that maybe are already being done, however there's the need, precisely, to put them in writing because there's an external certifying body that must have cognizance/knowledge of them, so something has to be put into effect in writing, also perhaps revealing/pointing out the laboratory staff that is responsible for one thing rather than another, and that has, in fact, the responsibility of carrying out that procedure.
GB:
The procedures that you described to us at the beginning of your slides, so of your series, are [107] procedures ... if maybe we go back to the very first slide, so I can ask you a few more precise questions. If not, then maybe ...
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Actually those at the very beginning.
PS:
These?
GB:
Look, you can stop. Perfect.
PS:
This?
GB:
Yes. What you write here is the protocol procedure, the one [i.e. procedure] that you did. In other words, what is this?
PS:
This is a procedure that is put into effect by all the forensic genetics laboratories that deal with carrying out these types of analyses. So not ...
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because out of range of microphone).
PS:
Yes.
GB:
It's best that we say this for the transcription.
PS:
Yes, the procedures that are indicated in slide 10, that is, if these procedures are not put into effect, one cannot work. In other words, one cannot extract DNA, quantify it. So they are operations that have very little to do with operations as such. I can do the quantification because I have the appropriate instrument/tool, I have the appropriate reagent, I have the appropriate laboratory to do it: so as [for] equipment, and I have qualified people, fit for carrying out this activity.
GB:
If we go to the following slide, if I'm not mistaken: no, perhaps it's the following one still. No, well then it was the preceding one, the one in which it was talking about the analyses... There. Perfect. I read that [108] it is written there, in fact, that after the DNA is extracted, it is quantified in order to know the quantity of DNA.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
And you were speaking earlier, if I'm not mistaken, of a specific and generic analysis of the trace and of the quantification.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
These procedures, in that they concern the small trace found on the little hook, [will] you show me how they are done?
PS:
Following the protocols ...
GB:
The quantification of the trace on the little hook.
PS:
Using the kit "Quantifiler" [by] the Applied Biosystem.
GB:
And what is the quantity, precisely?
PS:
Excuse me, I don't understand. The quantity of what? Of the total DNA extract?
GB:
Yes, yes.
PS:
At the moment, I don't have it. However, let's say it is a suitable quantity for [i.e. as a result of] having amplified it, because it has had the amplified [sic].
GB:
Yes, you know, we both met already during the preliminary hearing, that one of the things that we are pointing out is that I was interested to know the quantity of trace: how that trace was quantified.
PS:
With the appropriate software for quantification that is included, in effect, in the instrument, in the 7700 that we use.[109]
GB:
Yes. What I am asking you is this: granted that we are speaking, you already said it yourself, of a trace on the little hooks, is that correct?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Because there is no DNA that you have referred to Sollecito on the little fabric, correct?
PS:
Correct.
GB:
Nor on the bra.
PS:
Correct.
GB:
So granted that we are therefore talking of a DNA that is only on the little hooks, I wanted to know what the quantity is.
PS:
I don't know how to tell you. Numerically, I don't know how to say. Certainly it was ... since the amplification product is of everything [NdT: or "is entirely"], let's say, a result that is absolutely of good quality, I suppose that at least in the amplification test-tube there was a nanogram of overall/gross/total DNA.
GB:
However you understand well that that is your [own] supposition. I wanted to know if you are able to give me the documentation of this.
PS:
Ah. The documentation [of] that quantification. Yes. But not right now. However, unfortunately, that is to say, numerically – the number that came out of the analysis software – I don't have it now.
GB:
You are able, nonetheless, to produce the quantity?
PS:
Yes, the quantity, yes.
GB:
So you will be able to tell us how much trace there was?[110]
PS:
How much total DNA there was. Because there was a mixture there. I do not distinguish the DNA of the victim quantitatively from the DNA of Sollecito. I can distinguish it ... indeed, I can draw a quantitative relationship between the two DNAs solely [from] seeing the electropherogram. So, when seeing the electropherograph, I estimated there was a ratio of 1 to 6, that is, the victim is 6 times more DNA than Sollecito. However, ....
GB:
Let's begin [by] saying this, so in the area [NdT: also "with regard to"] the trace found on the little hook, we have a quantity of DNA attributed to the victim [which is] 6 times greater than that of Sollecito?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
The quantity, however, the number. You can't tell me that?
PS:
Total, no. I don't have it here.
GB:
Ok. Afterwards, obviously, we will have to return to this, to the little hook specifically. These were questions of a general nature, just as the following question is of a general nature: You said that you entered at ... it can be seen also in one of your statements/depositions...
PS:
Yes, between 1900 hours ...
GB:
1900/2000 hours, if I'm not mistaken, I read.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
However, I believe that it's undisputed/obvious, 1900/2000 hours, I believe I read here.
PS:
Yes.[111]
GB:
So you entered the house in via della Pergola at 1900/2000 hours. Does it appear to you that before your entry, the Perugia Forensic Police had entered?
PS:
Yes, there are pictures.
GB:
Are you able to tell us, do you know or were you told what type of activity the Perugia Forensic Police carried out before your arrival/participation?
PS:
Yes. In effect they began preparing the crime scene, so they catalogued, in accordance with a custom that is in fact the crime-scene inspection procedure, they catalogued the rooms, the exhibits/pieces of evidence; they highlighted the areas of greatest interest, which could be the victim's duvet, the traces along the corridor, so they place a, let's say, a nomenclature, there you go, both of letters and of numbers in some points.
GB:
When you entered, therefore, you found these letters already in place?
PS:
Yes. It can be seen, even. Yes.
GB:
The video-shot/video-film, which we have the diskettes of, and we even saw the famous last diskette, was made before your arrival, at the same time as your arrival?
PS:
Part of that video-filming was done prior [to my arrival]. In fact, there is even the time if you look: it starts in the afternoon, whereas, on the contrary, then the remaining part of the film, obviously continues and goes up to [the end of] the night, when we then suspend the proceedings/activities.[112]
GB:
Why did you suspend that video before highlighting these traces with Luminol? Because in the video ...
PS:
No. [Wait] a moment. You are mixing up the two crime-scene inspections.
GB:
The following one.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
In the one on the 18th, which is the last one in which ...
PS:
Ah. I thought we were talking [about] ....
GB:
No, about the video-filming in general. We saw in the end, because this disk was given by mistake now. We only saw it now. During the second crime-scene inspection the filming continued, as you know.
PS:
Yes, yes.
GCM:
The second crime-scene inspection...
PS:
The 18th December.
GB:
So we have two crime-scene inspections and they are all filmed, however the defence did not have the disk of 18 December. We [only] received it now.
MC:
No, of the last part.
GB:
Of the last part of 18 December. In this last part of 18 December, I believed I had found, because I had not found it in all the rest, I believed I had found the part in which the Luminol was applied.
PS:
As a video film?
GB:
Yes.
PS:
But it is not possible to film the Luminol highlighting/revelations with video. It's not technically possible.[113]
GB:
Why?
PS:
Because the photos that we carried out, and that are normally carried out during a Luminol crime-scene inspection, and thus that reveal the traces, require very specific technical characteristics: in other words, a long exposure [time], for example, so the camera must remain with the lens [sic] open for at least, if I recall correctly, for a [sic] 20-30 seconds, so an extremely long time in order that [it] can be exposed [sic. i.e. receive exposure from] by this luminescence – which nonetheless is weak – to the extent that everything must be carried out in complete darkness, or else it cannot be seen...
GB:
You exclude that there might exist video/television cameras that are, on the contrary, capable of filming these activities even in the dark?
PS:
As far as I know – but I'm not a photographic, video, expert – they don't exist. However, I may be wrong. Or at least we don't have them in our offices.
GB:
Can we take the photo of Meredith's room on the occasion of the first crime-scene inspection, the one [i.e. photo] in which the letters can be seen?
PS:
Yes. This one, or another?
GB:
Precisely the room. There is one in which the room can be seen ...
PS:
Yes.
GB:
There it is. Perfect. Is it correct to say that when you arrived, you saw this room in this way, with these letters already positioned?
PS:
Yes.[114]
GCM:
Slide 38.
PS:
Yes. 38. Slide 38.
GB:
I don't [i.e. can't] read it, the number.
PS:
It is here. It's in black.
GB:
Yes, yes. Problems with my optical [sic. optical viewer? Eye-glasses?]. Yes. These numbers and these .. these letters, you found them already in place?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
You found them already placed by the Perugia Forensic Police?
PS:
Yes. Because this is precisely the preparation of the crime-scene.
GB:
You said earlier that among the various exhibits/pieces of evidence that we see, there is also this bra that you defined earlier as "interesting". Why is it interesting?
PS:
It is interesting, let's say, before analysing it for one reason, and after analysing it for another reason.
GB:
Let's talk about before the analysis.
PS:
Before the analysis it was interesting for a reason because it was clear, as I have already said, from a purely visual analysis, so even from the very first sight, that the straps of this bra are clearly frayed, so they had been unstitched, at the very least.
GB:
It is interesting because it was frayed as if there had been something on this ... and because there was also this cut of ...
PS:
Because there was thus, on the one hand, precisely in this ... I don't know if you can see it: it can be seen in the other slide.[115]
GB:
It doesn't matter. As long as they know it, [as long as] they have seen it.
PS:
There was an area, in fact, that was not only missing a bit, but had clearly been cut/cut off.
GB:
And you immediately perceived/detected that there was this peculiarity on the bra?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
But you noticed that a little piece of bra was missing; did you look in the vicinity to see where that little missing piece was?
PS:
In the vicinity ... that is, in the vicinity there were so many things, so it was decidedly very chaotic.
GB:
The room, we've all seen it: it's not big.
PS:
No. But there were so many things. There was a chaos in that room at the moment when we arrived. Also when then the cadaver was uncovered/exposed/laid bare, there were extremely numerous exhibits/pieces of evidence. So it is clear that I considered the problem of finding it, that's natural, however, we gave the priority to all that ...
GB:
How did you look for this missing little piece of bra?
PS:
Visually, gradually as the exhibits/pieces of evidence were picked up. Many exhibits/pieces of evidence were overlayed one on top of the other, so progressively, as ... Certainly, I didn't rummage. Gradually as the exhibits/pieces of evidence were lifted off the floor. Especially, there were many exhibits/pieces of evidence that were on the flooring, so gradually as I picked up the exhibits/pieces of evidence, I and the other collaborators naturally, we were lifting and cataloguing the [116] exhibits/pieces of evidence that were on the floor. Obviously we were paying attention to what [each] exhibit/piece of evidence might hide beneath it.
GB:
Anyhow, so it is correct to say that you were already looking for that little piece of bra that for you was ...
PS:
Not specifically. I had noticed that it was missing however obviously ... since there were nonetheless other things that were evident and that had to be taken, such as, for example, the underwear/knickers rather than the sampling of blood on the wall, rather than the little paper tissues/hankies.
GB:
So you were aware that it was cut, this little piece of fabric, you seek it, but ....
PS:
I seek it, but it was not my priority to look for it.
GB:
It was not the priority?
PS:
No, because the priority was ... since the bra is so evident and was collected [as an exhibit/piece of evidence] practically first of all, maybe – now I don't remember – precisely in the immediate first moments, before the cadaver could be uncovered, before the coroner could be given access for the first inspections and so on. So it was one of the things that certainly was worth looking for, but it was not the priority.
GB:
Amongst yourselves you said “Let’s look for this little piece, [it] could be relevant…”.
PS:
Maybe I said it to the person … I don’t remember, in particular certainly it was not said to everybody, shall we say, as a sort of heads-up/be on the look-out, there now, [as in] “let’s look for this thing in particular”. Maybe I might have said it also to the person with whom I had … let’s say, who [117] was helping me, and so [who] bagged things for me, maybe I said it, but not in a specific way.
GB:
Are you able to confirm or rule out that in this moment [i.e. the moment being referred to], before the body of the victim was moved, the little piece of bra was there, and was in that area: can you say it, exclude it, are you unable to say “I examined in a very careful/attentive manner”?
PS:
Well, as you see, there are a great many exhibits/pieces of evidence on the floor, so, by eye, certainly I didn’t see that little hook with the cloth, I didn’t see it…
GCM:
You didn’t see it.
PS:
I didn’t see it. By eye, there was a [crime] scene absolutely packed/chock-a-block with … you, maybe, aren’t aware [of it] because the duvet/quilt and the victim are still there, but once the quilt is removed, there are so many exhibits/pieces of evidence; on the part towards the window there are still many many more exhibits/pieces of evidence piled up, there you go, just this area was maybe photographed and shot in a more careful/accurate manner and so you can see for yourselves that there are a great many exhibits/pieces of evidence, for which reason the little fragment certainly was not a priority compared to all the rest, this is certain, because we have to take some exhibits/pieces of evidence – because not all of them were removed during the first crime-scene inspection – some exhibits/pieces of evidence that maybe made [us] consider that they could be interesting and useful, then the little fragment of bra maybe, there you go, later, obviously, was then seen, photographed, shot.[118]
GB:
You were present when the cadaver what physically lifted?
PS:
Yes, yes. When it was turned [over], rather than raised.
GB:
That is, physically, shall we say, moved from that position.
PS:
Yes, yes.
GB:
You were present?
PS:
Yes, yes. Because it was the coroner [he] was present.
GB:
When the cadaver was moved, under the cadaver – under the back – there was that little piece of bra?
PS:
No, I did not see it. No. Except [for the fact] that under the cadaver, if you see the pictures, there was in effect a red floor, it was full of/awash with blood, with a great many tufts/strands of hair, there was [also] a cushion: the fragment of bra was certainly not seen by me.
GB:
Also because, I say, in raising it [the body], even if there was blood and strands of hair, if you had to collect something, if it [the bra hook] was under there, you would have collected it, I imagine?
PS:
Well, certainly. We collected the strands of hair.
GB:
That was the [my] next question: since you collected the strands of hair, if it had been under there, you would have collected it?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
The Sferon is an object that is capable of also photographing small objects?
PS:
Yes. Because they can be enlarged.
GB:
There you go! Good [girl]! Because they can be enlarged.[119]
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Through/By means of the Sferon, have you ever seen, [in] a photo maybe made while you were not there, that little piece of bra?
PS:
No.
GB:
Not even in the Sferon?
PS:
No.
GB:
So if we go to look at all the photos from the Sferon, we would not see it?
PS:
I did not see it.
GB:
You said earlier that a considerable/significant number of traces were found, let’s say …
PS:
460, if I remember correctly.
GB:
Out of 460 traces, the two that were attributable to Sollecito are the cigarette stub …
PS:
In the house?
GB:
In the house. Yes, in the house. We are talking only about the house, in the house of Meredith, etc. We have that one [i.e. trace] that you attributed relating to the stub.
PS:
Mixed, however.
GB:
Mixed. And then the trace found on the little hook. This is correct?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Now let’s move very slowly also to this. From watching the film that we have, from the filming of the footage, in reality we see that this little hook, this little piece of cloth with the hook, because we must then make a distinction, because the [120] little piece of cloth has traces, and the little hook has other traces.
PS:
Yes, yes. Effectively/Indeed.
GB:
So the little piece of cloth with the little hook was identified by the video camera that we have on 3 November at 0224 hours …
PS:
Yes. The night.
GB:
As you know, there is an hour...
PS:
An hour in advance.
GB:
In other words, we say this also for the Court, [you should] know that with regard to the times of the video camera, I don’t know for what reason, however there is an hour in advance. But it is clear. Nobody is contesting it.
PS:
Yes, “daylight savings time”.
GB:
You were there when there was that passage/excerpt of the identification [on] the night – for now we are talking about 3 November – of that little piece?
PS:
I was not present. However it was brought to my attention.
GB:
Who pointed it out and who decided to photograph it?
PS:
Well [NdT: or also “At that time”], no-one decided to photograph it because it is the custom/procedure that more or less everyone who does … who acts, let’s say, as photographer during the crime-scene inspection uses his/her own initiative [with regard to] the photography activities. Because it is a sort of cataloguing, photography, so images are produced/found, thus it was, shall we say, the photographer who autonomously photographed.[121]
GB:
But who pointed it out to you, do you not remember their name?
PS:
….
GB:
A person from the Forensic Police?
PS:
Yes, yes, that’s obvious. Yes, yes, it’s obvious, but I don’t recall precisely.
GB:
The question is this: since we have said that, to the bra [sic], it was said [that] the bra is important, you even sought that little piece of bra, if then you were notified, how can it be that – having finally found that little piece of bra during the night – it was not then catalogued/listed as exhibit immediately?
PS:
Because as I told you, it was not … it was important because it was a missing piece of the bra, but in any case we had already taken the whole bra, so maybe we overlooked it, shall we say, without any particular reason: we have the whole bra, [so] just like we overlooked the little piece, we overlooked the handbag, the sweatshirt, other exhibits/pieces of evidence that then later – ironically/strangely enough – fate/destiny willed that they give [us] results. In other words, there is no specific reason, since we had the whole bra … maybe if it was the other way around, then yes, that is, if I found first the little piece and recognized that it was a little piece of bra, because then to have found it alone without having first seen the bra, maybe it went unnoticed, however it had been the contrary, maybe, there you go, maybe I would have asked myself the question…
GB:
Given that first you said to me “I looked for it, once someone finds it, they take it.”[122]
PS:
No, just a moment. I did not say exactly that, I said “Certainly we set ourselves as the objective …”. In other words, we were looking for it, but without worry/stress, there you go. That is, we will take it in the case that we see it, if in case it’s proper … in other words, in the case that we consider it useful, then, maybe, since other exhibits/pieces of evidence were omitted/overlooked … that is, having, shall we say, the knowledge of afterwards [NdT: i.e. with hindsight].
GB:
When it was overlooked/neglected, where was it located?
PS:
It was left there where it was.
GB:
Where was it?
PS:
It was under the cushion.
GB:
Under which cushion?
PS:
The cushion which the victim was lying on.
GB:
Well, there you go, will you explain to us where it was found precisely?
PS:
The first time?
GB:
Yes, the first time.
PS:
There is someone who raised/lifted the cushion and drew attention to the little piece. That’s all/Enough.
GB:
Then you photographed it and left it there?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
So, to your mind/according to you, this little piece of cloth was left under the cushion, it was left in the place in which it was …
PS:
It was never touched during the first crime-scene inspection. That is, it was photographed, document, and that’s it.[123]
GB:
Do you know whether this little piece of bra was found in another area of the room, and if so, where?
PS:
It was later found in the course of the second crime-scene inspection, in the region of the desk, which we see there, more or less around here. That is, looking at it from the front in this point, below/underneath this mat.
GB:
So it is correct to say that on 18 December, this little piece of cloth was found underneath the mat.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Whereas you had left it, on the night of 2 November, in an area that was how far [from this]?
PS:
One metre, a metre and a half.
GB:
Are you able to say for what reason, by what means, this movement of this little exhibit/piece of evidence occurred?
PS:
No, I cannot tell [you] that.
GB:
According to protocols, can/may the traces, that which is not collected and thus kept in safekeeping, be moved or must it [sic] remain in its place?
PS:
It depends on the requirements/needs: that is, in the sense that if there is a need to carry out a search from the point of view of the Flying Squad, perhaps there is the risk that an exhibit/piece of evidence might be moved.
GB:
Indeed. We were coming to this. Do you know exactly, from the night on which the little hook was spotted, from the 3rd, to the moment in which it was collected, and so the 18th December, in these 46 days, how many persons entered in that room, and if there were [124] any searches carried out, any rummaging, any moving of objects?
PS:
Well, I don’t know how many people entered in that room, absolutely. I can account for those people that I saw in my presence during the two times, during the two crime-scene inspections. Then, who entered, who moved the objects, and why they did so, I don’t ….
GB:
Do you know that there was a search?
PS:
Yes, I heard that, but I didn’t read [it] in the [case] documents. I know there was a search carried out, but I know neither in what precise point, and nor … I know it was [carried out] on the part of the Flying Squad, but I don’t know by whom.
GB:
Do you know whether a search was carried out in Meredith’s room or not?
PS:
No. The search, no. I deduced it from the movement of the objects, but I don’t know precisely in what areas the search was carried out. That, no.
GB:
Let us continue for now with 3 November. On the night of 2-3 November, you had gloves …
PS:
Yes.
GB:
… [protective] shoe-covers, you went around the whole house, that night?
PS:
It depends on who. The video operators – photo [sic], that is, those who shot/filmed the house, so who did the overall/general filming …
GB:
How many were you?
PS:
When I arrived?
GB:
Yes.[125]
PS:
About ten people in the whole house, more or less, but not …
GB:
I am repeating these questions to you, but because you … I’m sorry, because you already answered me earlier.
PS:
Not [everybody] was there at the same time, because, shall we say, there was a need to do some things rather than other, so the coroner maybe was there at one time, at another [time] not, and so on.
GB:
So it is correct to say that you were not all present in the room at the same time?
PS:
Yes. Not everybody in the same room at the same time.
GB:
One might/could enter in a room, exit, and the re-enter?
PS:
It depends for what reason, but it could be done, if there was a need, yes. But if there was no need … that is, why do it?
GB:
It was possible to re-enter with the same shoe-covers, or did one change shoe-covers?
PS:
That is, move from one room to another with the same shoe-covers?
GB:
Yes.
PS:
Yes. But there was no need to do so, however. At least [not] at the time when I was there, because all the attention was focused on the victim’s room, so the other rooms … [126]
GB:
You, when I asked you the question during the preliminary hearing, answered me ... I had said to you: “So, in essence, whoever entered a room and then left the room could re-enter the room?” – [you answered] “Yes, [they] could re-enter.”
PS:
[They] could re-enter, but whether they then effectively did so, I don’t know. That is, there was no … I mean, no-one said to him [sic] “Do not enter that room”. But on the other hand, there was not even any reason to enter it, because we were all ….
GB:
You did not see anyone who went out of the room and then re-entered?
PS:
But, from what …
GCM:
Incomprehensible because beyond range of microphone).
PS:
Well, I was saying… that is, no-one said to anyone “Do not enter in that room and do not leave it”. I mean to say, there was none of these instructions because there was no need to enter another room except the room of the victim, where the attention was focused by everyone who was working at that time.
GB:
Are you able to rule out the circumstance/situation, or do you not know if anyone re-entered that room?
PS:
Excuse me, I didn’t understand the question.
GB:
Assuming that one could, you said “In abstract, one could if there was a reason”. Can you say to me “I can tell you, with certainty/confidence, if this did or did not happen”?
PS:
But from which room? That is, from any given … [127]
GB:
If [people] entered and exited from the room, this one here that we are seeing.
PS:
Well, yes … well then, excuse me. The briefcases and all our tools/equipment were located outside.
GB:
Exactly. Since it can be seen in the video, I wanted …
PS:
It’s obvious. There was [the person] who passed the bags, who passed the test-tubes, who passed the paper for collecting. That is, we could not collect and leave the bags of exhibits/pieces of evidence on that floor, so it is obvious that there were at the very least people who were going along the corridor and who reached/went as far as the threshold of the exit [NdT: i.e. front door].
GB:
It was something we saw in the film. However it pleased me also [to have] a description.
PS:
Yes, yes.
GB:
The shoe-coverings were therefore only changed if one went outside of the villa …
PS:
of the house.
GB:
But not, on the contrary, if a subject walked in the corridor, entered in Meredith’s room, and went out again. Is that correct?
PS:
Yes. There was no reason.
GB:
According to the protocols with which one must collect an object, I ask you whether that which is photographed must also be in some way described in a report?
PS:
No, not necessarily.
GB:
There could therefore be photos with something that is not … [128]
PS:
Yes, only that which is acquired is described in the report.
GB:
At this point, I wanted to ask you, with regard to the glove problem which we have spoken of abundantly/at length, however we must repeat some of the questions about the gloves, that I had, in fact, already put to you in the preliminary hearing, however I ask you this: you had so-called single-use gloves.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Explain to us what single-use gloves are for, why they are called single-use?
PS:
Well, single-use gloves are useful for two reasons. One, above all, for, shall we say, preserving the safety of those who are working from possible infections. So I protect myself with the gloves. Also in the laboratory it happens in this way: I protect myself with gloves because obviously I don’t want to come into contact with all the biological substances of absolutely unknown origin with which I come into contact [sic]. The second reason is because I don’t want that, as I touch the various things, I might inadvertently mix a biological trace from one exhibit/piece of evidence with another. So, obviously, we use single-use gloves in all crime-scene inspections precisely for working and for collecting and touching, shall we say, the exhibits/pieces of evidence, for taking them, for sampling.
GB:
And this, obviously, [is] for guaranteeing the genuineness of the exhibit/piece of evidence?[129]
PS:
Yes. Also because the worker/operator, since he/she has DNA, obviously he/she might also transfer his/her DNA from the cells on his/her body onto the exhibit/piece of evidence.
GB:
Insofar as the transfer of DNA to an exhibit/piece of evidence is possible if a subject has soiled/dirty gloves, is that correct?
PS:
Soiled/dirty with what? With dust, no.
GB:
With DNA.
PS:
But the DNA has to be obtained/got from some …
GB:
I am asking you in abstract if I ….
PS:
DNA, certainly. It depends on the quantity and on how it touches the exhibit/piece of evidence, however.
GB:
So, I say in abstract. Later we will see the concrete case. In abstract, is it correct to say that if I have a glove that is in some way soiled with the DNA of “John Doe” [NdT: “Tizio”, i.e. “Tom” as in “Tom, Dick and Harry”], and I touch this microphone, I could leave that DNA, transfer it to this microphone?
PS:
If that DNA, however, is contained in a fresh trace, in other words acqueous/watery [trace]. Because otherwise, if I have DNA [that is] absolutely … how to say, dry, contained in a dry substance, which might be blood, saliva, whatever thing, and I touch an object, I do not transfer the DNA. To the extent that various samplings gave negative results. That is, even though I scraped at the wall the second time, I did not get a positive result for many reasons, but nonetheless there was certainly DNA there. Even the blood was so evident/clear. So the first time, we also had positive results for blood, however, obviously the trace was nonetheless deteriorated, decayed, something had nonetheless happened [130] to it so that even though in certain cases I rubbed/scrubbed [it], I did not obtain useful results.
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because beyond range of microphone).
PS:
In the sense, [let me] explain myself, [that] since the DNA has a precise location, that is to say, it is connected/linked to cells, or at least to the nuclei of cells, initially the biological trace, at the moment of [its] forming/creation, is a biological trace that I call fresh, that is, in the sense that it has a certain water content: because all our biological fluids have a large quantity of water; thus blood, seminal fluid, saliva, even, shall we say, skin in a certain way – but this is a rather different matter – has a certain water content. Now, if I touch a fresh trace, it’s obvious, it’s very evident, I [will] soil/stain my hands with that liquid that contains the DNA. But if I touch a desiccated trace, that is to say, dry because it’s old, because it has now dried out in a precise way, that is to say, it no longer retains any water that can transfer, can foster/facilitate the transfer of cells from one point to the other, it is very unlikely there will be transfer of biological substance to the extent that … there is, for example, another example that we can make: in this very crime-scene inspection there is an ashtray, which I spoke of earlier, with six cigarette stubs. Obviously these stubs inevitably – even if they can’t be seen, maybe, in a very clear manner – these stubs are all in the same ashtray. Probably, absolutely, it is, shall we say, absolutely taken for granted/to be expected that these cigarette stubs came into contact with each other, because [131] if I put out a stub, maybe [I] bump [it] into the adjacent one. Yet nonetheless these stubs all gave different genetic results: three gave a genetic profile of a man, two gave the genetic profile of another woman, and one gave a mixed genetic profile. So, I mean to say, it’s not so easy to transfer genetic material from one point to another. It depends on how the exhibits/pieces of evidence come into contact, for how long, precisely what forces act among the exhibits/pieces of evidence, and above all the time-period. That is to say, even if I rub a dry trace, [if] I put it in one spot and I make it touch that spot for an infinite time, there will not be any transfer. But we saw this with so many exhibits/pieces of evidence, even that same sock – there is a sock concerning which I certainly let pass [NdT: i.e. didn’t mention] because there was a result of little relevance from a genetic point of view: there’s a sock that, during the second crime-scene inspection was found rolled up in this blue mat, shall we say, where afterwards the little piece of cloth with the little hooks was found. This exhibit/piece of evidence, out of three samplings – so it was rolled up, it was bridled/curbed [sic: NdT: “imbrigliato” in the original: probably a typo for “imbrogliato”: i.e. entangled] in this mat – out of three samplings, two gave a positive result for the victim’s DNA, so for the victim’s blood, but one sampling gave a negative result. This sampling was carried out on the elasticated edge, thus where I assumed that I would be able to identify the person who wore it, because by rubbing/dragging the elastic gathers the cells of the person who wears it. Yet nonetheless I did not find such DNA, so it is not a given that DNA is transferred: it’s not so simple, because there have to be so many conditions in order to have [132] such a … both the quantity and the time of creation of the trace.
GB:
{{{2}}}
PS:
If it is soaked/infused with.... That is, for me, soaked/infused [intriso] means that it is full of something biological, and I rub/scrape it.
GB:
Okay. Let’s turn to another question. If it is a case of exfoliated/desquamated cells, if I have a glove that in some way [enters into contact] with exfoliated/desquamated cells …
PS:
But, external or internal? Excuse me. Because I have two ...
GB:
External.
PS:
I could also have the cells of the worker/operator that … I don’t know your question.
GB:
I had on one had a glove. On the glove I have exfoliated/squamated cells. Can I transfer the exfoliated/squamated cells? [Speaking] in the abstract, is this a thing that can happen, or not?
PS:
In the abstract, something might be transferred. One would have to see, then, [whether it happens] in practice.
GB:
There are things that one might say, in the abstract, don’t happen, cannot happen…
PS:
I cannot exclude it. I don’t see the exfoliated/squamated cells, so I can’t exclude them. However, these [133] exfoliated/squamated cells… excuse me, I would have to have been there with that glove, rubbing/scraping a surface – someone’s back, for example – for some time, pressing in a manner that is rather … with force, or I would have to have scratched that person. That is to say, I would have had to have scratched them with the glove [on] …
GB:
Excuse me. If, with gloves that are soiled with exfoliated/squamated cells, I go and touch and take [up] precisely that little hook, might I leave … if I take [i.e. grasp] the little hook, not if I take/grasp the cloth, might I leave, in taking it by the little hook, exfoliated/squamated cells on the little hook?
PS:
May I clarify something – [about] the concept of exfoliated/squamated cells? On which, perhaps, we [can dwell] for a little moment …
GB:
Please.
PS:
Exfoliated/squamated cells, which I have defined as exfoliated/squamated cells in my report, in reality are not the exfoliated cells of the cutis which come away [NdT: i.e. are shed] naturally by the skin because they are cornified/horny lamellae [NdT: or stratum corneum cells], and thus our skin in continuous vitality, that is, with its normal vital cycle, we continuously lose cells, cornified/horny lamellae of course, without anyone touching anyone else, and other [cells] are re-formed from the stratum basale of the skin. I am not referring to these cells, because it is not even possible to extract DNA from these cells because the nucleus is effectively dead: they are keratinized cells, they are a bit like our hairs. So in every case, in every part of the report, [where I use] exfoliated/squamated cells I am indicating/referring to the cells that presumably, according to the position/location in which they were found on the exhibit/piece of evidence, might lead one to think of a rubbing/chafing/friction. In other words, I must get past, shall we say, the corneal barrier of dead cornified lamellae [NdT: i.e. keratinized cells] of my skin, in order to reach the subsequent strata. So, there you go, that’s why I said that one has to rub/chafe: because otherwise I would not obtain these cells. It is as if I had to do a scrub, so to speak. Thus, there you go, so that I can reconnect with/link back to your question.
GB:
{{{2}}}
PS:
We would have to shake hands in a very intense manner for a good long while.
GB:
If I have those exfoliated/squamated cells on a glove, and I touch a little hook with force, do I transfer them?
PS:
If I have the right cells, yes, I can/may transfer them.
GB:
Do you recall whether someone with gloves actually touched the little hooks of the bra?
PS:
It was me. That is, [it was] me and another operator/worker. We were touching ...
GB:
Since you, during the preliminary hearing, when I asked you: “Does it appear to you that the little hooks of the bra were touched with these gloves?”, you, during the preliminary hearing, answered me with “No”.
PS:
No, in fact, I was saying so [sic] I remember it, because it was me, they were touched between the hooks, that is, when they were held in the hand there was the cloth that maybe is not very [135] clear, because the glove nonetheless gives a certain obstruction/clumsiness: it’s not perfectly close-fitting. There’s the cloth that … however, even if …
GB:
So you are saying “I touched the cloth and not the hooks”?
PS:
No, I’m telling you ...
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because out of reach of microphone).
GB:
I [will] finish the question. In the preliminary hearing, I asked you: “Did you touch the little hooks with the gloves?” – and you answered me, it’s in the records/minutes and we are requesting to acquire them – “No, the little hooks, no”. Now I ask you again: Did you touch the little hooks with the gloves?
PS:
Well, I can say to you: it is certainly possible. I don’t recall perfectly. I certainly recall that I touched the cloth, because I tried to avoid. If they were then touched, I don’t exclude that.
GB:
I was [sic] I will show you a passage/excerpt of the video.
PS:
Yes.
GCM:
We can continue for another half hour and then ...
GB:
And what should I do?
GCM:
Let’s adjourn, and then we’ll start again.
GB:
As you wish, that is, [you/one] asked me …
PS:
Are we adjourning now?
GCM:
No, no. We’ll continue for a half hour. However I was saying that there are subjects/arguments to be dealt with in a uniform/shared manner ...
GB:
So we want to adjourn now?[136]
GCM:
Now, immediately, no.
GB:
Well then, we’ll trace [sic] it afterwards, since it’s complicated.
GCM:
It’s a subject/argument …
GB:
Yes, it’s clear that it’s long, President. It’s the trial!
PS:
Then I overrule.
GB:
Well then nothing. This if it is so long ...
GCM:
Maybe then we’ll return to this aspect and …
GB:
Because you want to deal with it in a uniform manner in a little while.
GCM:
Perhaps it is expedient/advisable, I don’t know, for the parties to also have an evaluation …
PS:
I’ll give it again to them then.
GB:
So we will take this part up again afterwards.
GCM:
Yes. We can put it off, please.
GB:
Let’s go back again to the part that we were doing first/before, that is easier to do quickly. You were present during two crime-scene inspections. The first was that which we said started from 2 November, and then the second on 18 December. Between the two searches, when you had arrived … the second crime-scene inspection, the second time that you had arrived, can you please describe for me what you found [that was] different, given that there had been, in fact, searches? You have already given me that description, however, [137] there you go, if you could repeat for me that type of modifications of the surroundings that you may have encountered. We are talking, for the Court, about the second crime-scene inspection, that is, when one enters after 46 days.
PS:
Yes. Well, first of all from the entry-way, shall we say, entering into the apartment in the living-room part, [the most] evident was the mattress, in effect the victim’s. I understood that it was the victim’s because turning it over, there were the cuts that I had carried out.
GB:
The?
PS:
The cuts. The cuts in the cloth. There were two cuts, two samplings, so it was certainly the mattress ...
GCM:
Excuse me, to remove/take away …
PS:
To take/remove the traces of haematic substance that then gave as a result precisely haematic substance. They are also slightly visible here. They are, for example, the O. I don’t know if you are able … this little trace that is actually at the very bottom. Well, anyhow, there are two traces.
GB:
This mattress that we see in this photo, thus the Court sees it.
PS:
Yes. Wait a moment so that I .... [it]
GB:
Perhaps there was also even bigger. Oh, well, it’s not important.
PS:
Yes. Maybe ... Here. For example, these are the places where the traces were found, however, unfortunately, they can’t really be seen.[138]
GB:
Nonetheless, this mattress; you left it this way, when you left after the first crime-scene inspection?
PS:
Yes. Obviously without the objects ... without the towel that was on it, because that was taken – exhibit/piece of evidence 8 – so that we understand each other, this was removed: it was taken to the offices. The handbag, on the contrary, was left, because it was taken during the second crime-scene inspection.
GB:
So, in essence, one enters, one sees that which ... on the mattress, there are a series of objects: that which is taken/collected means that it is put in a little bag and taken away.
PS:
Yes, and it is catalogued in the report/minutes...
GB:
And it is catalogued. That which is not taken is left on the bed?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
So in essence, you had left the room in these conditions except for that which was taken away?
PS:
Yes, except for that which was taken away, shall we say.
GB:
In this respect, can you tell me ... the mattress, precisely where was it found?
PS:
On the sofa, in the day [living] area of the apartment.
GB:
Do you know who carried it out?
PS:
No.
GB:
Then?
PS:
Then there were ... so, in effect there was the bed-base [NdT: “rete” (i.e. net) in Italian, as bed bases used to be made from a wire net on a metal frame. Nowadays the bed base is often made of slats of wood, in which case it is called a “rete a doghe” (i.e. web [sic] of slats/staves) (see next para.), which is the European equivalent of a “box-spring”] in the place of the mattress, that is, one saw the bed-base, precisely, without the mattress.[139]
GB:
which was of slats?
PS:
Slats, exactly. On that bed-base of slats, so on the bed, shall we say, without a mattress, there were clothes…
GB:
Where did the clothes end up?
PS:
In this phase of the crime-scene inspection, that is to say, in this crime-scene inspection, I think that there were clothes, shall we say, either from the wardrobe, or they were those which we did not take the first time. The second time, we find many clothes on the slatted bed-base, so certainly we find many clothes that are here. The doors of the wardrobe which were leant against the door, so on the inside of the room, against the door. But I know this for certain, that it was due to the fact that the crime-scene inspection following mine, so that of the latent prints, need to analyse also the internal part of the [wardrobe] doors, and so they took them off in order, precisely, to treat them with the … and then, they didn’t put them back on [the wardrobe], there you go. Then other movements … then the little mat/rug we found it …
GB:
Let’s talk about the mat/rug. This mat/rug, where was it, initially? It can be seen here, no?
PS:
Yes, yes. It was here. It was in this place here, where we see it, in this position, so between the wardrobe, before the window, in this corner, in effect, towards the right-hand panel of the wall.
GB:
This rug/mat, what happens to it? Where do you later find it again?
PS:
We find it again in front of the desk, so shifted by a metre.
GB:
Is this the rug/mat under which the little piece of cloth from the bra will be found?[140]
PS:
Yes.
GB:
So we have both a mat/rug that is found in a different area, and the little piece [of bra] under this mat/rug in a different area on the 18th [December]?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Photos were made of this mat/rug, we saw.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
What was there on this mat/rug, that which could be seen?
PS:
Placed/lying on it?
GB:
No, as a visual examination if something could be seen, because you took photos, made …
PS:
Well, but it can also be seen here, there are haematic traces, presumably haematic, because the rug/mat was not analysed.
GB:
The question is precisely this: how can it be that the rug/mat that was found with haematic traces was not analysed either the first time, or even the second time, given that that little exhibit/piece of evidence was also found underneath it?
PS:
Well, but underneath [it] there was also found another sock, other things were also found, that were then not taken/collected, that is to say, [they] were not ...
GB:
Under the rug/mat, what was found?
PS:
This sock, which we spoke of earlier, this was catalogued as exhibit/piece of evidence Z in the crime-scene inspection, in the second crime-scene inspection. And I recall other things from the video. However I [141] cannot tell you specifically because there were things that were not taken, so the mat was rolled up/wrapped and there were … I don’t know if they were little pieces of paper, that is to say, receipts, something of the sort, there you go, because I don’t recall precisely.
GB:
Then we will just see the video after the break, in this way, we will show it also to them, because my question, precisely, is this: during the second crime-scene inspection, attention was focused on the fact that this rug/mat was raised, and these things were found underneath?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Why on earth was that which was found underneath the rug/mat taken/collected? The mat/rug was soaked with blood, it was on top of these things, and it was not taken/collected?
PS:
Because [it] was not … that is, I did not consider it to be useful to collect/take the rug/mat, just as it was not considered useful to collect/take so many other things. That is, one has to make a choice. One cannot take everything. And so the choice is that: the rug/mat, yes, it is stained with blood, but it was clear that it was stained with blood, [it] was in an area where there is the enormous streak of the victim’s blood. That is to say, I did certainly did not give priority to the mat/rug with respect to other objects that might have been the sock, which maybe might have been worn also by another person, for example, other than the victim. Or else, I don’t know, other things that were taken, also the second sock, the pair of the first one, was taken. Then the sweatshirt, the blue one, which, shall we say, also this I was a bit [142] undecided whether to take it or not. Then I was decided by the fact that I found it in a certain way, that is, soaked with blood, particularly in the area of the neck; then there was a wrist-band/cuff turned … that is to say, the sweatshirt had both the sleeves turned [inside-out] towards the inside [of the sweatshirt], so probably it had been slipped off or, in fact, always/still the same thing, maybe someone slips it off by themselves however, there you go, [it is] the turning [inside-out], in short, which is a bit peculiar, so … that is to say, I did not consider it useful to take/collect this with respect to other things.
GB:
What I was asking you was this: in the range/field/compass of the first crime-scene inspection and also of the second crime-scene inspection, I saw that you had [taken] – it can be seen from the video-films – precautions on a clothing and garment level.
PS:
Yes.
GB:
Can you tell me what your clothing was during the first and second crime-scene inspections; if there were differences, if you ….
PS:
No, the same overalls/coveralls, the same overalls/coveralls.
GB:
The same overalls/coveralls, gloves …
PS:
The same overalls/coveralls, [but] changed, obviously. The same type of overalls/coveralls.
GB:
Certainly. Masks?
PS:
We had masks, but sometimes we took them off also, naturally. So enough not speaking, or speaking in a cautious/circumspect manner, shall we say, not ….[143]
GB:
All this, this type of clothing, is [used] in order to avoid that anyone coming in from outside might, as [happens] usually, contaminate an environment?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
What I am asking you, is this: But between the first and the second crime-scene inspection, if there was a search with an activity of rummaging/ransacking, moving of objects, etc., at that point, what was the use of this new clothing, since there had nonetheless been an entry on the part of the subjects/persons who had carried out a search?
PS:
It’s useful in every case, above all because I preserve my work. It doesn’t interest me, shall we say ... how to say, to work in a different manner only because I might hypothesise that there might be contaminations inadvertently brought by other subjects/persons. And this is one, so also at the hundredth crime-scene inspection, I would still attire myself with all the [due] precautions…
GB:
According ...
PS:
If then, excuse me, I also have, shall we say, knowledge/cognizance, relative knowledge/cognizance, because I was not present, however I know for certain that I told [my] colleagues of the Flying Squad, but nonetheless, the colleagues are told in general “if you have to enter, use precautions in touching things, in walking, so use shoe-covers, procure this material for yourselves”. So I feel, I mean to say, until proven to the contrary, I can exclude that they acted incautiously.[144]
GB:
Does the moving of objects, the rummaging/ransacking in drawers in any way alter the surroundings or not completely alter the surroundings, if I drag a mattress from one room to another?
PS:
Excuse me. I don’t understand. Alter the surroundings in what way? Alter the arrangement of objects, yes.
GB:
At the level of the genuineness of the surroundings and of ...
PS:
If I do not ...
GB:
Let me finish the question.
PS:
Yes, excuse me.
GB:
So, at the level of the genuineness of the crime room, do you consider that it is possible to assert that the same identical conditions [as those] that you found upon entering in the first crime-scene investigation are the same as those that were found 46 days afterwards, even though there had been a search and other entries?
PS:
Certainly the surroundings/environment was different, was modified. So, [the fact] that this might have entailed something that, shall we say, might have … how to say, prejudiced the goodness of subsequent inspections, I can neither assert nor exclude. Obviously I have no evidence that there was a contamination [brought about] by other persons. That is, I mean to say, the cigarette stubs from unknown persons that I found in the ashtray, I mean it’s plausible, if I don’t empty the ashtray every day, maybe I’ve had visitors, in short, it was a house of young folk, so, then, there you go, [there were] three from one person, two from another person, so it’s not a contamination thing. [145] Contamination does not go on three separate cigarette stubs. That is, the same DNA on three different cigarette stubs and with the same type of result. [And] then they are in the same ashtray, as I said, so if they had contaminated themselves/each other reciprocally, then I ought to have found so many mixes. Instead, …
GB:
But according to protocols, is it possible to carry out a search and afterwards do a collection [of exhibits/evidence] and [nonetheless] have a guarantee of genuineness according to forensic genetics?
PS:
If the colleagues acted in a careful/watchful manner, [then] why not? If I enter and move [things], but do not take anything outside, then I do not insert/introduce into the room something that, how to say, comes from who-knows-what situation, [or] place. And at any rate, I don’t … how to say, I don’t use instruments/tools, things that might impair/damage the genuineness of the surroundings, and so might bring things that are absolutely beyond the control of my will…
GB:
I ask you, on the basis of what you know happened in there, can you affirm that this happened, or not?
PS:
I cannot affirm/assert it. I don’t know what happened between the two crime-scene inspections, other than the movement of objects, which it is undeniable that it happened. So … that is, I cannot say. It can be supposed, but one can make so many suppositions.
GB:
President, for now I will stop if you agree because now there’s the film, if that’s ok with you.
GCM:
Yes, very well.[146]
INT:
Excuse me, Mr President. In order to not disturb [us] later, Mr Patrick must leave. I was simply pointing it out, in order to not disturb [you] later.

The present proceedings are suspended/interrupted. The present proceedings are resumed.

GCM:
(Incomprehensible because beyond range of microphone).
GB:
Yes. Decidedly, yes.
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because beyond range of microphone).
GB:
Thank you, President. This is still Lawyer Buongiorno. Let us continue. In a moment, I will show you some parts of the film. In the meantime, I wanted to ask you, concerning that which we were saying earlier about the Sferon, if you in fact remember, that this apparatus, which has three feet, was introduced into the murder room?
PS:
yes.
GB:
And [do] you remember if this apparatus was introduced at the same time as a suitcase which contained the related documentation?
PS:
Yes, it contains the, shall we say, the computer part, which is annexed to the Sferon. It is inseparable [from it].
GB:
Exactly. It is a suitcase. We also have the photos. I believe we already showed them to you. Under each foot of this Sferon, there was inserted a glove. What is the reason for putting these little gloves?[147]
PS:
Well, obviously, so as not to actually materially soil the tripod each time that it is placed in a room, in a place where presumably there might be biological material, so blood. In this case, there was a great deal of blood, so it is protected from an accidental/inadvertent, shall we say …
GB:
[Do] you know that this instrument had already been placed in all the rooms, even outside, and on the little terrace?
PS:
I don’t know if before or afterwards. I believe that the first room that was dealt with is that of the victim, because it was the first one to be inspected/catalogued, so since the Sferon has [NdT: i.e. derives] its, shall we say, raison d’être [reason for existence] when it is used before any other technical activity, I think that the [other] phases were subsequent. That is to say, on the little terrace I seem to recall that the following morning [we] filmed the …
GB:
Do you know if comparable attentions and cautions, other than to these little feet, were adopted also for the underside of this suitcase, or else, if we watch this film, for example, will this suitcase turn out to be rested on/placed [on the floor] without anything underneath it?
PS:
No, look, certainly also if ... I repeat that, since I did not do the filming with the Sferon, I cannot swear it, however certainly caution would be used surely also for the suitcase, because with even more reason [than] the little foot [which] has a small resting/support-surface, the suitcase will have a larger resting/support-surface, and so I imagine that yes. But I did not see it, there you go.
GB:
Can I show a photo?[148]
GCM:
Please.
PS:
Yes, I think that this is the instrumentation/equipment of the Sferon.
GCM:
The photo, Lawyer?
GB:
It is a photo of the [suit]case, however under this [suit]case there does not seem to me to be any type of precaution.
FM:
Where does that photo come from?
PS:
From where…
GB:
It is one of the photos normally taken …
GCM:
In this photo, this [suit]case is recognised as [NdT: also “do you recognise this (suit)case as…]
PS:
Yes. This is the equipment/device, shall we say, that is used to record the images filmed by the …
GCM:
(Incomprehensible because out of range of microphone).
PS:
In this precise photo, we are in the victim’s room, and so this is in fact the …
GB:
Since I observed earlier that it does not seem to me that there are precautions under this [suit]case, there will also be others now …
PS:
It may be, excuse me, that something is attached/stuck, a sheet [NdT, e.g. of paper – not a bedsheet], a film, underneath the case at the moment when it is placed on the floor, that is …
GB:
Do you know this, or is it your hypothesis?
PS:
No, it is my hypothesis arising from the fact that the tripod is protected and I don’t see why …
GCM:
Observing this photo, can you say, can you exclude, that there is protection?[149]
PS:
No, I can neither say, nor exclude it, because since, presumably, it is underneath, there is the [suit]case placed on top of this presumed protection and it cannot be seen.
GB:
the Defence requests that this photograph be produced.
GCM:
We will show it to the Parties, please.
GB:
Obviously all the photos that we submit/present to the witnesses, and I say this for reasons of completeness/thoroughness. Nonetheless, I will repeat it each time, they are not our photos: they are obviously extracted from various video-films, and anyhow I believe that Dr [Stefanoni] has acknowledged that it is the Sferon, it is not another thing that we have ….
PS:
No, no, it is that.
GB:
At this point, let us return to the problem of the gloves that we had to tackle earlier, and then we interrupted [it] in such a way [so] that there would be a moment of continuity in the questions, shall we say. First of all/above all, these single-use gloves: can you affirm that during the course of the crime-scene inspection they were changed every time/whenever an object was touched?
PS:
If it is an object that is particularly, how to say, soaked with blood, or showed evidence that made one consider that the gloves would be soiled, [then] yes. Otherwise, if any given object, such as this glass: I can move it, but this doesn’t mean that my DNA will remain stuck to it: it depends which object. In theory, yes, because all objects, above all in the first part, are acquired/collected: very few are touched and left there.[150]