DNA evidence showed Mez DNA on the blade of the murder weapon and Amanda's on the hilt. Witness Kokomani, in addition, reported being threatened by a drug-crazed Amanda on the murder night, brandishing a large knife.
...
The pro innocent people around here make several claims with regard to Kercher's DNA on the knife.
1. The concentration of DNA on the knife was apparently too low for a reliable test.
2. Patrizia Stefanoni failed to provide relevant underlying information about the testing done on the knife including things like the results of testing done for control purposes and the results of testing that would have identified the DNA concentration reliably.
3. Blood was not identified on the knife so the source of the DNA could not be identified. There is a large distinction between the evidential value of a finding of DNA associated with an identifiable biological source and DNA where the biological source can be identified. If Kercher's blood had been found on the knife the very likely explanation would be that the knife was used in the murder of Kercher. However when a biological source is not identified innocent explanations for the finding of DNA become much more likely, including contamination and incidental touch transfer.
4. If the knife was to be used as evidence the most likely place that blood or other evidence could be found would be the crack between the hilt and the blade. The blade was not removed so this area could be tested. This suggests to the pro-innocent people that Stefanoni was not thoroughly investigating the knife evidence. She was just going with anything that she could find that had the ring of incriminating evidence. It was also curious that the prosecution would resist the disassembly of the knife for the purposes of collection of evidence if they were truly involved in a search for truth about this case.
5. When the knife was retested no evidence of human blood or Kercher's DNA was found on the knife, most especially in the area where Stefanoni claimed to have found it.
6. The collection of the knife was done under very suspicious circumstances where the police had just been shown to have made a horrible error when they misidentified a foot print in blood as consistent with shoes that Sollecito owns when in fact the foot print was incompatible with Sollecito's shoes and was compatible with shoes that Guede owned. So they go on a sort of scavenger hunt to find incriminating evidence of AK and RS and incredibly find what they were looking for after completely missing any real evidence of AK and RS on their first crime scene investigation. And both pieces of evidence that they find do not stand up to additional scrutiny. The bra clasp because it was destroyed by the storage technique.
7. The knife that Kercher's DNA was allegedly found on is both incompatible with a knife stain in blood on the sheets on Kercher's bed and the nature of the wound reported by the first pathologist involved with the case.
All of these points have been made in this thread since you have been participating in this thread. So what was the purpose of a post indicating that you still believe the DNA found on the knife collected in Sollecito's apartment is evidence of guilt? Do you dispute any of the arguments made in this thread that the DNA findings are not valid evidence? For instance, do you believe that the concentration of DNA found on the knife was sufficient for a reliable DNA test? You claim to be objectively analyzing the evidence in this case. So what are the results of this objective analysis with regard to the DNA evidence on the knife beyond the repetition of a claim that you think the evidence is valid?
