Ok. Let me try this again. I won't drag out the big letters yet, but I'll confess this is very difficult to explain when someone refuses to read what's actually written.
In none of my posts have I stated as fact that there is anything more in the testimony than what is printed there. I have, on the other hand asked questions about how and why the stains might have gotten there, and what it might mean in regards to the case. I actually said that in one of my posts, but obviously you require that I say it again. Next time, I'll get out the big letters, or let Fresno do it in screaming HTML.
So, you admit, FresnoDA is your lackey ?
OK. The testimony states there was a pair of underwear with a yellowish stain. You have questioned how and why the stains got there and what it means. You do not accept they are just urine stains because DNA cannot be taken from Urine. There have been other posts now explaining exactly how DNA is taken from dirty underwear.
You seem to be asserting that the stain is more than just urine. We won't know that until the trial. My argument was that it was in all likelihood, URINE, and you told me I was wrong.
Now , can you see the possibility that your speculation is unfounded?