Patrizia Stefanoni's Testimony (English)
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
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  in the Forensic Genetics Investigations section of the Rome Forensic Police.
Public Prosecutor - Dr. Comodi
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  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  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  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  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...
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  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.
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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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.
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…
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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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.
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  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.
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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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.
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  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.
The present proceedings were paused/suspended.}}
The present proceedings were resumed.
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  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].
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  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  [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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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 ...
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  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.
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,  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.
DEFENCE – Lawyer/Counsel Buongiorno
The present proceedings are suspended/interrupted. The present proceedings are resumed.