4 ms·

Fair enough point. If the test isn't reliable, then no conclusions (positive or negative) can be drawn. How about his testimony? Even though nothing about 'pol

Fair enough point. If the test isn't reliable, then no conclusions (positive or negative) can be drawn. How about his testimony? Even though nothing about 'police integrity' was mentioned in the EDTA test request, he talks about it in his testimony. And he assures that the blood didn't come from the vial for the samples he DID NOT even test. If that is not a proof of bias, I don't know what is. [I never mentioned the hole in the vial in my comment. I looked in to it and found that it is absolutely possible that the vial has a hole in it. ]

bcassedy 11y ago
The defense expert tested that the test can only definitely say that EDTA is present, not that it is absent. Due to the rushed nature of the test and the fact that it has only been used once before, there are definitely questions about the exact procedure used and if that could invalidate the results. There is also the question of the detection limits of the test. Neither of these things were made available at the time of the trial. Additionally, there were multiple tests performed on blood from the vial. One of the tests came up negative. I do not believe that this was brought up at trial, and I think it should have served to prevent the tests from being presented. In addition to the tests itself there are two huge problems with the blood. 1) The evidence seal is broken. This is a huge procedural mistake. Maybe the hole in the top is supposed to be there, maybe it isn't. Maybe it was re-used to extract blood from the vial. 2) The FBI tech that testified has been found to have misconstrued evidence in other cases. His statement of certainty that the untested vials did not contain EDTA is either an outright lie or complete incompetence.