Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz
Well, there's no strong motive nor evidence that anything was planted (and there's even the EDTA test which basically shows to a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty" that the blood wasn't from the vial)... so why exactly should the jury believe the evidence was planted again??
I'll provide my actual opinion once I read all o the DNA testimony.
But my current opinion based on the things I've read, is that all the EDTA test
'proved' is that there was no EDTA found (or that it didn't meet the minimum threshold for the test being conducted) in the blood samples tested.
Not as you just put it, that "the blood wasn't from the vial"
NOTE;
This is my current opinion, based on the things I have read to date, which is mostly other people's opinions.