Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: cyncooper
I'm sure the lawyers will point out everything they can, but if the judge actually strikes some testimony that will be very dramatic.
610 posted on 08/04/2002 12:07:15 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies ]


To: John Jamieson
In the prelimary hearing, DVD said he WALKED the dog, after he put the kids to bed at 10, then he WALKED the dog before BVD and girls came home, had just got in bed when they did show up. Is'nt this totally different then what he said at the hearing?
611 posted on 08/04/2002 12:15:25 AM PDT by calawah98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies ]

To: John Jamieson
John, here is more info regarding the stains on the jacket and the presumptive test for blood. Testimony of Sean Soriano at the PH:

Q. Let's go back if we could. You mentioned the substrate control. What is that?

A. A substrate control is basically to test an item or fabric to make sure that the chemical presumptive test is not giving a false positive.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Meaning a positive result is given by a substance other than blood, the chemical presumptive test for blood.

Q. Are you using these substrate controls to allow a later analyst to determine if the jacket itself has something in it, as opposed to the blood staining, providing any later genetic information?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did you take these substrate controls from areas immediately adjacent to each of the stains?

A. Yes, I did.

626 posted on 08/04/2002 10:07:48 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson