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.
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).
I don't know what point you intend to do by the above quote translation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
