I don't think I've ever read any of the PGP say anything other than praise for the prosecution and the convicting courts. Indeed, when it was pointed out to Vixen that Judge Nencini in his 2014 conviction of the pair, said that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife**** the only thing that Vixen offered was that the motivations report should have been proof-read better.
When the PGP show they can critique the prosecution and the courts....
**** will save it for others to point out what was wrong with this assertion/invention of Nencini's
Perhaps more important is another error of Nencini.
"But all of this is entirely irrelevant to the question of the specific significance of the fact of having found Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on the hook of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher on the evening of the murder. There is no reason for the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito to be present on that hook, as nothing in the case file indicates that there was any intimate or even merely familiar relationship between the victim and Raffaele Sollecito, apart from [244] the fact of his having been present on the evening of the murder and having
pulled at the clasp with his fingers in order to cut the elastic closure at the moment when the victim was being attacked. Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the one that is important at trial is that of Raffaele Sollecito, since the evidence places the defendant at the scene of the crime on the evening when the murder was committed, and indicates his taking an active role in the attack on Meredith Kercher."
This is a crucial piece of evidence as it is used to place Sollecito at the time and place of the murder.
1) The bra strap (elastic closure?) tore and was not cut. 2) If Sollecito had pulled at the bra strap he would have touched the fabric and not the hook! The fabric where his DNA was not found.
The DNA cannot attribute time, so Nencini errs in saying that he places him there on the evening.
The judge fails to recognise that secondary or greater transfer is a possibility, in analysing the evidence he has to show that he recognises the possibility even if he subsequently decides direct contact is the most likely explanation, here he implies direct contact is the only way DNA can be transferred. This is especially important in a low level of trace DNA.
The only time you usually touch a bra hook is putting on the bra, you need to do this to guide the hooks into the eyes. You do not touch the hook when taking a bra off, you just touch the cloth covering. This is why I think that Knox transferred Sollecito's DNA (along with others) from her hand on to the hook when she put the bra on. Certainly transfer post crime e.g. during collection is also possible.
Nencini only really considered the prosecution case (as ISC said he presented a case to justify conviction and did not seriously consider the defence case), To do so he invents a non-existent (indeed false) scenario, but one that could not explain the evidence it was supposed to explain.
