For some reason Machiavelli is back. I will deal with his claims.
• Machiavelli claims that the behaviour of the prosecution was above board and there was no suppression of evidence, lying or using false documents. The misconduct which occurred is detailed here. Could Machiavelli explain why the prosecution had to resort to these tactics if the knife/DNA evidence was as a slam dunk :-
•
•
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
•
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
•
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
I did not open the links above. I remember I've read already probably at least one page where the Knox site presents those ridiculous narratives - the point is that those are ridiculous narratives. They don't bear any backing in the events of the real world or in the actual trial documentation.
• This is Stefanoni’s testimony when she has difficulty telling how much DNA is on the knife. If there was a full profile on the knife and the DNA evidence was such a slam dunk , why is that Stefanoni had difficulty telling how much DNA was on the knife.
The question is very stupid. The DNA on the Knife was found through a procedure as for art. 360, indicente probatorio, an unrepeatable event valid as court assessment. Defence experts were summoned, Prof. Potenza attended and was able to document whatever he wanted to, to do it the way he preferred or to decide whether to do it or not.
The investigation was open for about 8 months during which parties were granted access to the laboratories, they were urged to request any further documentation they deemed fit or any further test they wanted.
When the preliminary hearing came, Dr. Stefanoni was called as a witness as she deposited the technical report with the court. When questioned about the quantification of the DNA found on the knife, she simply said she didn't know - since she had the technical report with her, but not the whole documentation. She didn't remember that, as well as not quite much details about that particular laboratory session.
Most of Stefanoni's testimony was about the methods and the techniques they follow in the laboratory, and she explained the many findings about all the case (about the minimal amount found of Guede's DNA for example, explained the improbability of detecting DNA from second potential female individual in areas where there was massive biological material from another female - given tha lack of Y-tracker, she talked about the reliability of various kind of presumptive tests and so on).
Stefanoni said she did not remember about the knife quantification. And quantifications were not indicated in the report and documents she had with her. So she could not tell.
It's quite straightforward.
I am talking about a questioning that occurred in 2008. (not the one you are quoting)
The defence insisted asking her if she could give her opinion at leas about a rough esteem - what could be the magnitude of the DNA amount - Stefanoni said it must have been an amount in the magnitude of the hundreds picograms.
Her inference was correct, based on an estem about the sensitivity of the equipment used for the amplification. She later maintained that her initial esteem was indeed correct (even though in 2008 she had not remembered correctly the type of equipment).
DEFENSE – Attorney Ghirga
QUESTION – One last question precisely in relation to how much emerged, the DNA extraction on the knife, you I believe, had said that you don’t remember how much DNA you extracted from the blade, from the scratches.
ANSWER – No.
QUESTION – Is it possible to check the extraction log?
ANSWER – Yes, one can check.
QUESTION – Is it a number that can be acquired?
ANSWER – Yes.
QUESTION – One can obtain the extraction in the extraction log as you say.
ANSWER – Yes.
QUESTION – But you do not remember, correct, how much DNA you extracted…
ANSWER – One can obtain the true extraction amount from that S.A.L., that one yes.
QUESTION – But you do not remember now?
ANSWER – No, here, no..
QUESTION – Can one acquire this data?
ANSWER – Yes, the data of the extraction, yes.
QUESTION – While you confirm then how much was… how much was the elution and the collection of DNA to do…
ANSWER – Yes, it was concentrated in the first sweep, then it was quantified, and then after that it was re-concentrated to 10 microlitres.
QUESTION – Now, being interested in the exact quantity of DNA extracted from the scratches we can obtain it, let’s say in the court files, is that so?
ANSWER – Yes.
DEFENSE – Attorney Ghirga – Thank you
I don't know what point you intend to do by the above quote translation.
• Machiavelli argued it is pointless to the prosecution if the defence agreed or not there was a full profile on the knife. According to Vixen even the defence agreed there was a full profile on the knife which would be of immense benefit to the prosecution’s case and Machiavelli is seriously claiming the prosecution would not have exploited this. Would the prosecution not say something in court along the lines of “even the defence agree there was a full profile on the knife which must mean we are correct in saying Meredith’s DNA was on the knife”. There is no record of the prosecution using this argument.
Well I don't remember all statements said in a trial by memory, but I something along these lines might have been said, I think in 2011 Manuela Comodi argument included some statement of that kind - albeit it was not "the defence agrees" but rather "C&V agree".
However, the argument itself is pointless. Because a meaningful point is not really about the kind of rhethoric that this or that parties decides to use, what type of statement they employ. You shall not put those arbitrary "style conditions" on a trial and let your judgement depend on that.
• Machiavelli claims Amanda’s DNA was supposedly on the clasp and the prosecution don’t use this damming evidence. There is no record of the prosecution saying Amanda’s DNA was on the clasp.
No. I suggest you read more carefully what I wrote. It's not me the one who claims. I am agnostic on the point, and I am not really interested. I not that it was the *defence* of Sollecito who made the point.
Indeed they made the statement, and the prosecution made just the point that "the defendants are accusing each other". It was in 2008.
• Machivelli says that the knife matched a bloody imprint on the bed and was a match for the fatal wound. If I remember correctly Machiavelli and prosecutor Crini made this claim around the time of the Nencini six years after Meredith’s murder. If the knife matched the imprint, why did Machiavelli and Crini wait six years to make this claim? As can be seen from the link I posted on the knife from Amandaknoxcase.com, the defence expert Professor Vinci showed the knife was too large to have caused the imprint on the bed.
This is also a discourse entirely astray from the trial topic. You are actually shifting from the topic of evidence. It is not true, to start with, that prosecutor Crini waited six years - since Prosecutor General Crini took the case in 2014.
The only reason why Crini made the point, in my opinion, is to answer one of the points the defence presented on appeal. Had the defence not presented the point, Crini would not have even looked into the issue.
If you present a question "why didn't the prosecution present this" as if it was an argument, this in my opinion may just show some basic misunderstanding about the dynamics of trials. In courts of law, it is actually normal that evidence is just left out, even big chunks of evidence or whole scenario may be left out, that some potential evidence is not collected on investigation, etc. The fact is that this is how it works, there is always an economy, research is often somehow limited on many aspects on what's needed, things that are deemed unnecessary are not pursued. It appears nobody in the prosecution ever commissioned an expert investigation on the knife print. They did not even look for that piece of evidence.
• Machiavelli claims the knife was a good match for the fatal wound which is incorrect. The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm and the length of the knife was 17 cm. There was bruising at the point of entry which showed the knife was pushed all the way to the handle. If the knife had only caused the fatal wound and two knives were used, why were the prosecution not claiming this from the start? When the police collected the knife, they said nothing about two knives being used and Raffaele’s knife had only caused the fatal wound.
You don't seem to take into account the transverse process of vertebrae (C1) which prevented the blad from being inserted beyond the depth of 8.5 cm. There is evidence the linear movement transferred its energy to a rotational movement of the blade, as a consequence of being stopped by the bone. This is what cause the blade to have its shape - with a large cut on the skin converging in detph towards a "V" shape.
It is not true that there was a bruising on the skin "showing" something. Actually there are numerous bruises on the skin all around the area, while there is a second wound on the skin in that area.
• Machiavelli missed the point when I pointed out the defence had no objection to the knife being opened and the prosecution and civil parties opposed. If the knife had been used to stab Meredith, there was a possibility blood would exist in the space where the blade joins the handle which is difficult to wash off and this would be damming evidence. If Amanda or Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith, why did their defence teams have no objection to opening the knife when this could have revealed blood in the space between the blade and handle. If the prosecution and civil parties were so certain the knife was used, why did they not want the knife opened?
This is also not a point.
The civil parties (and the prosecution as well) already thought Vecchiotti was corrupt and they distrusted her. They pointed out that she should have tested the I trace, which was the DNA collected from the handle insertion, as she was ordered to, something which she refused to do.
Regardless whatever we thing about the civil parties strategy, as I said this is not an argument, because one cannot infer anything from that. They didn't want to legitimize Vecchiotti's actions and that was their choice.
By the way, you could argue that there was a possibility that "blood" (as you say) was found (I don't know why don't you say DNA, such was found in trace I by blade insertion - the prosecution and defences wanted *that* to be tested), but the prosecution & civil parties might also assess that the probability of finding "blood" could be low, compared to the probability of not finding it and therefore backfire, or anyway be not worth the risk given that they assumed the evidence should be deemed already sufficient. They obviously assumed that if "blood" was not found, Vecchiotti, given her behaviour, would "use" the void finding in a way hostile to them, as they distrusted Vecchiotti's honesty.
• Machiavelli argues that there was DNA on the knife which meant there must have been biological material on the knife. When C&V tested the knife, it was negative for the human species and tested positive for starch. This meant the knife had no human biological material such as cells and tissue. Contrary to Vixen’s claim, there is no record of the prosecution saying there was human material such as tissue on the knife. In addition there was no blood on the knife. How could DNA exist on the knife without blood or biological material?
The reverse reasoning is valid: DNA was found on the knife - on multiple locations - which implies that humen biological material existed on the knife.
The finding of starch (or better, "detecting" starch via visual observation of microscopic samples) does disprove the finding of biological material.
Other methods are not comparable to the sensitivity of DNA tests - since DNA can be amplified. The "failure to find" through other methods is not a proof of absence.
That "biological fluids of Knox" were on the knife is also stated by the Barni - Berti report.
