Andrea Tosatto criticized Capra for insulting Massimo Giletti and treating others as ignorant, arguing that such an attitude did not strengthen the arguments but made them more arrogant. Tosatto reported that Capra considered negative tests irrelevant and claimed that a flat line did not necessarily demonstrate the absence of DNA. While acknowledging that such a trace did not automatically exclude the presence of DNA, Tosatto said that a negative result could not be dismissed as irrelevant for that reason. According to Tosatto, conflicting results would require checks on the correspondence of samples and analysis conditions, the reproducibility of the positive result, and the methods used to obtain it. He also questioned whether the sample had always been collected by the same person and hypothesized that the mysterious "Port" might have swapped the analyzed items. For this reason, he deemed Giletti's questions legitimate and stated that a negative result did not automatically render the positive result unassailable. Tosatto added that technical expertise did not authorize humiliating others and that, in his opinion, Capra had made a poor impression in front of millions of Italians. He also said that if he were Bossetti, he would have cried watching him on television. Regarding the Garlasco case, he argued that conclusions should be proven with verifiable documents, procedures, and explanations, and stated that Chiara Poggi deserved the truth. Finally, he challenged what he described as the presentation of a signature placed under the wording "seen everything" as if it were a signature on a complete document. #Giletti #Garlasco #Capra #Scienza #Verità #Rispetto (translated)


