<snip>
Since you asked me now, though, I'd say firstly that you're being facetious in claiming that Antony was referring to being able to see the actual double-helix strands of DNA themselves passing between gloved and bra clasp.
Antony said, "We can see the bra clasp being contaminated right in front of our eyes on the video."
There are very few ways to interpret this statement which do not
sound facetious, because it is a patently false statement. We can see nothing of the sort, and the claim is ridiculous on its own merits. It needs no additional help.
And, that having been said, I'd broadly agree with Antony that the amount of direct contact with the metal parts of the bra clasp (including, unbelievably, rubbing at one point....) means that anything that was subsequently discovered on that metal hook cannot fail to be viewed with anything other than suspicion about its evidential value.
Why?
I could just as easily say that there is no reason to presume their gloves were contaminated with
any other DNA. There does not seem to have been an abundance of DNA of any sort randomly situated around the apartment to be transferred in the first place, and the application of considerable wishful thinking is required to make the unqualified assertion that Sollecito's DNA in particular was transferred to that particular location at that particular instant.
By the way, if Sollecito's fingers really did make contact with the tiny metal hook on the clasp, this would clearly imply that he'd handled the bra in other areas while trying to either access the clasp mechanism or trying to pull the strap apart. Maybe you can help explain why Sollecito's DNA wasn't therefore found on any other part of the bra or the clasp area. Would you suggest that the forensics team were negligent in not finding it? Or would you suggest that Sollecito managed to deposit DNA on a smooth metal clasp but not on the rough (and far more receptive-to-DNA) material of the bra?
I'll pass on the interesting assumption that a rigid structure, such as a small wire shape, is less likely to collect DNA than a soft cloth surface. Perhaps we do not share a common sense of the term "rough". It isn't one I would apply to most women's undergarments. It is not needful for Sollecito to have grabbed any more than the clasp itself in any case.
I am looking at one of Mrs. qg's bras as I type this. There are three sets of two loops for adjustment. They are completely uncovered on the outside. The set of two hooks is indeed barely covered on the outside, but only by a very short tab of cloth which also serves to grasp and pull the hook end of the clasp. I believe this construction is relatively standard.
We are told that Sollecito was, shall we say,
inexperienced as far as intimate relationships with women until his whirlwind romance with Knox. It is not unreasonable to think that he was less than adept with a bra fastener. He could have grasped it by the hook side of the clasp, pulled unsuccessfully trying to get it unfastened (an experience familiar to many young men) and then used his knife to sever it in frustration (hopefully less familiar). We can safely surmise that someone in such a circumstance as undressing a recently murdered corpse might feel under a certain amount of pressure.
So Sollecito could easily have grabbed the hook side of the bra clasp, yanked on it without success, and then cut the strap with his other hand, never contacting any other part of the bra, but quite firmly coming into contact with the hooks.
Is this possible scenario any more incredible than Antony's assertion that we could
see the contamination happening in the video?
This is what he proposed, and apparently you concur.
