No, that is the entire point my previous post attempted to make.
They are claiming it was human flesh under the nails, as in ***a piece of flesh that was scratched off of someone's body*** by the AV, supposedly. As for when the scratching story came up, I don't know for sure but I believe it was fairly near the beginning of this mess, maybe not right at the very beginning.
If this is what they are going with, that it was a piece of human flesh that she scratched off a guy and it stuck under the nail, then it can't be refuted simply by saying the nail could have picked up a few cells from material that would normally be in the bathroom wastebasket.
But tissue is made of cells. The talking heads can be saying "tissue" when in fact it's merely a single skin cell or two resulting from casual transfer. If the similarity between the evidence at the exemplar isn't within the guideline to be deemed a "match", it would be prejudicial of the judge to allow it in. Of course, selling it to the GJ as a "match" is a much simpler matter, and isn't regulated by the court. It's only regulated by the ethical standards of the prosecutor, Since the prosecutor has no ethical standards, rest assured that the test results, no matter how weak, will be spun as a "match" by Nifong to the GJ.