No. There is nothing to discuss. There is nothing to ascertain. If there are two opposing scientific results, particularly one positive and two negative, that element cannot be used as evidence against the suspect or the accused. This is due to the principle that a conviction must be issued beyond a reasonable doubt, for the presumption of innocence, for the "favor rei." Because we live in a rule of law state. The DNA of Chiara Poggi on the pedals of Alberto Stasi's bicycle was one of the seven pieces of evidence that led to his conviction. Judicially and humanly. In the ruling of the Court of Appeal in 2014, it is clearly stated that according to the RIS interviewed during the first-degree trial in 2009, that DNA was significant, highly cellular, and compatible with blood substance. In fact, it was so significant that white blood cells could be seen with the naked eye. And that the tests conducted in 2009 yielded negative results regarding the blood presumably because two years had passed. All this was reported. But they forgot to mention that the day after the positive result, two additional tests (which were incomprehensible given the clear result of the first test) had yielded negative results. And when the experts appointed by the first-degree judge asked for all the laboratory results related to the pedals, they only provided the positive one. I want to believe that I live in a place where those who hold great responsibilities take on the consequences of their actions or omissions. I am not interested if, according to the law, the consequences will not be criminal because they have become statute-barred in their illegality. I care that those responsibilities be clarified and made known to everyone. To everyone. And I am sure that will happen. #garlasco #garlasco #giustizia #presunzioneDiInnocenza #diritto (translated)
