No, it's the job of the prosecution to produce evidence that is certain. Evidence that has been handled in a way that makes contamination as close to impossible as possible. The safeguards in the labs such as cleaning protocol and positive pressure hoods are required. They are required precisely to eliminate the possibility of contamination in vast, vast majority of tests.
If the safeguards were not present, it would be very difficult to show probable contamination often - if that were not true the more stringent protocols wouldn't be necessary.
But this is just false. And this is not a jury based adversarial system in which the evidence can be preemptively selected by a judge. The duty of the prosecution is not at all to bring findings that have an absolute certain or certified meaning, it is instead to just bring facts that are meaningful on a probabilistic level. You can well reach a certain conclusion without any "smoking gun" and with not a single element that is absolutely certain. There is no need of absolute certainty thresholds or certifications whatsoever for evidence in a trial.
Italy allegedly has an adversarial system, but clearly it isn't fully accepted. The issue is more with the "jury" system. Here and elsewhere where the judge MUST rule on evidence before the "deciders" enter the juror room. Here the judge eliminates evidence that just being presented would impact the deciders even if the defense were to be able to attack it. An example would be DNA that wasn't handled to accepted protocol standards. This has nothing to do with any gun smoking or not.
Things that don't rise to accepted levels are not facts. It is a fact that Stef claimed she found the DNA but her methods and the handling of the items leaves that claim short of a fact.
In the Italian system the judge does decide what will be presented to the other judges in court. Massei decided that Cristian T wouldn't be allowed to testify. Not every "fact" a prosecutor wants to present MUST be allowed. Certainly the court didn't allow many defense requests.
Well I for one thing the box was handled by cops that were in the cottage IIRC. I could get a cite but no one would care
But you can't be serious calling tho a "connection with MK". Tertiary transfer from having breathed the air inside a house (not the room). What are the records in science of a transfer under these condition? What are the odds? It' ridiculous. You could start talking of probability approaching the area of reasonable probability if Gubbiotti was wearing a jacket completely splashed with Meredith's blood. Btw Gubbiotti did not leave his alleged contaminating MK's DNA on any other item he handled from Sollecito's apartment; actually not even his own DNA is found on the knife, nor that of other forensics, not even on any other item collects in Sollecito's apartment.
Breathing the air, please. Exactly what did the policeman that placed the knife in the calendar box do at the cottage? What did the cop that spied the knife do at the cottage? The amount of alleged DNA on the knife clearly could get there by secondary, tertiary or even through more transfers. Do you think DNA just vaporizes after a secondary transfer?
Raf's DNA was on the door, someone in the 6 weeks between CSI visits got his DNA from door and then touched the bra clasp as they moved thing around in MK's room. MK's DNA wasn't on the knife at all but if it had been one source would from the lab itself. It could be secondary transfer from Amanda to the knife. The cop in the station could have picked up some MK DNA and then transferred to the box.
But, first you don't even have evidence of RS's DNA on the door, in what amount was it there? Did Sollecito lick extensively the surface? There is no evidence of a source of any massive or anyway statistically significant size.
Then, who would this "someone" be? Did anyone pick up the clasp? How did Sollecito's DNA from a dry trace stick on the metal? And nowhere else? What are the odds for this transfer? Whereas the operator did not manage to leave not even his own profile on any item, not even on the floor?
And the knife, with 6 days of interval during which 105 samples were analyzed by the same machine and no MK trace found (this is the Novelli report)?
Amanda's secondary transfer, an isolated trace on a blade? Why not on the handle then? Why not on the things Knox touched most frequently? And after all, why should Knox come into contact with a large source of Meredith's DNA? And even if that was the case, would any better forensic technique change anything to this matter?
Are you suggesting that Raf was part of this violent murder and left no DNA in the cottage at all? Obviously the ICSI didn't find it, but does that mean it wasn't there? Did they check the door? Whose DNA was on the door knob? Did they find any DNA from the PP?
There are a plethora of ways it could have ended up there with the slack behavior of Stefanoni. Are you related to her?
Has any non-police associated or non Italian expert backed the work of Steffy.
And has any non "defense-siding" expert found anything to the contrary? Any non Vecchiotti- related expert?
Gill. Since all the experts except those directly associated with the prosecution went against Stef, I guess you would say they were "defense siding".
Why not give all, as in everything, of the lab files and all related information including collection videos to an independent expert from some non-involved country and see what they come up with? Please don't answer with some legal gobbledygook.
