Kauffer,
I used themurderofmeredithkercher to look up a translation of Stefanoni's testimony. It could be clearer, but she appears to be making an argument along these lines: "Trace B was taken in this point, not on the basis of any relevant trace from a biological point of view that was, shall we say, visible to the naked eye. However, to the eye was visible, under considerable illumination in fact, a series of striations/scratches/scores were visible, of which one was particularly deep, between inverted commas. They were however striations, so fairly superficial, but clearly visible. These striations went ... they ran largely parallel to the upper part of the blade, so more or less they were parallel to this side. Towards the point, shall we say, they started to descend a bit, so they followed a bit the shape of the point/tip, however they were striations, anomalies in this metal that were visible to the naked eye under an intense illumination, whereas the point of A was sampled, of the handle naturally, as also the D, F, with the intention of possibly finding DNA of the person who had grasped that weapon. In particular, the point A was done in a particular point in which there is the "limit-switch" [sic: fine-corsa in original: perhaps the hand-guard?] of the hand, in other words if I grasp the knife and strike a blow, my hand naturally would tend to go forwards, in that point the knife is made in such a way as to not allow [prevent] such a thing, otherwise my hand would go onto the blade, and so there is a short tail. In short, this part that sticks out here that you see, the sampling was done precisely corresponding to this area, and it had a positive outcome [of] the genetic profile of Knox Amanda."
