[cyncooper]

DNA test is not necessarily blood. Too bad there weren't enough samples for Defense to test.

From Dusek's closing argument:

DANIELLE'S BLOOD. NO DISPUTE. NO DEFENSE EVIDENCE THAT IT'S NOT DANIELLE'S BLOOD. IT CAN ALWAYS BE RETESTED.

(end excerpt)

What is your source that there weren't enough samples for the defense to test.

[John Jamieson]

The quote I remember is that the carpet drop was destroyed during testing and that's why it was not photographed. Even that makes no sense. Why wouldn't you photograph it before you destroyed it?

I think Dusek's saying "Blood" when he means DNA. I wish Feldman had hit this stuff harder than he did.

[John Jamieson]

Remember that opening and closing statements are not evidence. The jury can't even ask for a readback of them.

[Jaded]

It's come up before. Don't know off hand. Don't have transcripts memorized.