Replies

If the blood didn't match Feldman's defense would have had experts galore testyfying it didn't. Instead he was silent.

Why? Are the scenarios we're talking about here (blood swipes vs. stains, drool vs. blood) too low on the probability scale to be taken seriously by any except conspiracy theorists and murder writers, and therefore too unlikely to be given serious consideration by the jury? Were any of these alternate theories even brought up by the defense, or with the large amount of other inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, would it have been self defeating for Feldman to bring this up? Interesting question for analysis after a verdict.

The questions you are asking about the defense addressing the DNA is the only thing that really has me puzzled about Feldman. I have wondered over and over why the defense put up nothing against the DNA testing. He had no DNA experts on to counter the prosecutions DNA tests (or if he did, I do not remember them).