Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Do you TRULY not know the answer to that question ?
12 members of the jury did not think the evidence was 'tainted beyond belief'. If you have additional information that cements your assertion that it is 'tainted beyond belief' why were you not asked to present this for the case of the defence?
As with any forensic evidence, the jury has to rely on the expert witnesses, and in this case the argument that the blood could only get into the fibres was compelling and effectively ruled out cross contamination given the blood would have been dry a few hours after the event.