[Perdogg]

Why would a SANE swab the affected areas if she was told by the AV that the assailants were a condom?

Logically the only DNA that would should would be the boyfriend.

Also, if the other fingernail contain DNA from someone who wasn't identified as an assailant, why introduce it as evidence. This would be more bad news for Nifong. The DNA is going to have to decide whether to suppress the DNA or allow it to show that the witness is not credible.

[Sacajaweau]

The nail MUST be introduced as evidence now. He can't backtrack on it. It will be used as proof of innocence since it does not have the 13 markers. Less than 13 markers EXCLUDES the accused. DNA is not horseshoes.

[Alia]

I may be mistaken; but even if she said they wore a condom, a swab of the "affected areas" would still be required. We are in the age of DNA.

[pepperhead]

Why would a SANE swab the affected areas if she was told by the AV that the assailants were a condom?

I think I heard DNA might still be present even with a condom. Tests will also show presence of latex. Which to this point I don't think they have found.