…about what the jury saw may be bigger then what we do know. For example, testimony about fingerprints can be a big deal in setting the scene. However, we don’t know about the fingerprint testimony, as to where the various finger prints were found and what was even tested. The news reports I’ve seen i get the sense that the forensic testimony on fingerprints only lasted a day or two, and we don’t know what other documents were entered in as evidence.
In this case, Knox’s lamp was found in the victim’s room. Its significant enough that Knox was questioned on it on the stand. Was the lamp dusted? What was revealed? Fingerprints at all? Fingerprints that couldn’t be determined? If there was an absolute lack of evidence on the lamp, it would point to a partial clean-up of the scene. If only the victim’s prints were found on the lamp, it would be inconclusive for the offense and for the defense, as the victim may have moved the lamp herself when she got home that evening.
Deducing from what I’ve seen so far, since the prosecution didn’t make it part of the case (from what i’ve seen so far) the only possibility might be that the lamp wasn’t dusted, or that the victim’s prints were found on the lamp. If knox’s prints were the only one on the lamp, and she didn’t know how it got into the room, it would have been part of the case; futhermore the prosecution has stated only one of knox’s prints was retrieved from the scene. If the lamp was wiped clean, it would have been part of the evidence of someone disturbing the scene. With the victim’s prints on the lamp, the case can be made that it was moved that evening by the victim. Only one of Guede’s prints was retrieved; so either his print isn’t on the lamp, or it wasn’t dusted.
