ROSM
Well-known member
No, but you're castigating me for judging them without apparently having all the facts, and then doing exactly the same yourself, albeit with a different judgment.
No I'm not. I have referenced reported extracts from the trial to support my OPINION that the forensics are sound. You have stated as FACT that the forensics are flawed. I am, genuinely, interested in your background to be able to do this.
If you are relying on quoted elements of the trial then you could only come to the same conclusion as many have done that the defence of cross contamination did not stack up due to the lack of expert evidence and the failed attempts to reproduce the situation the defence claim occurred.