What I think. I believe it is necessary to make some clarifications regarding the many things that are being said these days about the actions of the technical consultant appointed by the then Public Prosecutor of Vigevano. When a public prosecutor entrusts an assessment to their own technical consultant and the assessment is carried out in the manner provided for in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code - that is, involving the defenders of the accused and any appointed consultants - that consultant has a legal obligation to make available to the same Public Prosecutor, and obviously to the other parties, all the material related to their work. The obligation of the consultant to submit all documentation is accompanied by the prosecutor's duty to include everything in their file so that the parties can, if they wish, use that material in a future trial. In this case, the lack of knowledge of every operation related to the assignment has ultimately created a procedural flaw (or perhaps it would be better to define it as a “virus”) that has then spread in the subsequent phases of the proceeding. Just to give a concrete example, the experts that the Judge of the abbreviated trial had appointed for an ad hoc expertise on this aspect (DNA on the pedals) did not have knowledge of the negative replies. This process continued until we reached the latest ruling of the Supreme Court, which considered that it was undisputed that there was highly cellular genetic material belonging to the victim on the pedals of the "Umberto Dei" bicycle. By denying the judges of the merits (the GUP of Vigevano and the Courts of Assize of Appeal in Milan) knowledge of the objectively hidden elements (in the sense of "not present"), it ultimately undermined, in my humble opinion, the entire validation process of the evidence, rendering it in fact illegitimate. I am firmly convinced that the Public Prosecutor's Office of Pavia is necessarily committed to the faithful reconstruction of what happened and any related responsibilities. Last note. If at the time of the appeal presented by Stasi's defense to the European Court of Human Rights it had been possible to report this enormous violation of the right to defense that was unknown at the time, the outcome of the appeal would have been completely different. (translated)
