[cyncooper]

I thought the test used showed that if they were able to extract DNA from the spots that tested positively presumptively that it was not from other bodily things (you've said it could be nose stuff or saliva, I believe) or am I misreading :

"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?"

At any rate, just wanted to throw it your way.

[John Jamieson]

She said it in a misleading way, it's not your fault, but it doesn't solve the problem. We don't even know if the second control sample was ever tested for anything.

All the testimony says that a presumptive test was done and DNA tests were run, skipping any mention of the normal serology tests. They may have done the serology tests and not told us about them, but why would they skip the chance to yell, IT WAS BLOOD! SEE BLOOD! (because they found no blood, is the only reasonable answer).