Elena

But even so, I think her analysis can only be as good as the evidence she's given. And in this case, a lot of the evidence is questionable at best. For example, she had to swab the blood that was in those good ol' reliable red Solo cups. And she testified that she's never before or since seen evidence collected in cups like that.

But even so, I think her analysis can only be as good as the evidence she's given. And in this case, a lot of the evidence is questionable at best. For example, she had to swab the blood that was in those good ol' reliable red Solo cups. And she testified that she's never before or since seen evidence collected in cups like that.

Also, can you believe that after all this nonsense with the cups, no one even tested those swabs she took to determine whose blood it was, or even if it was blood? She also showed jurors up-close photos of John's clothes, and one in particular caught my eye.

Also, can you believe that after all this nonsense with the cups, no one even tested those swabs she took to determine whose blood it was, or even if it was blood? She also showed jurors up-close photos of John's clothes, and one in particular caught my eye.

Also, can you believe that after all this nonsense with the cups, no one even tested those swabs she took to determine whose blood it was, or even if it was blood? She also showed jurors up-close photos of John's clothes, and one in particular caught my eye.

It was John's gray hoodie, which appeared to have some sort of puncture mark in it, about the size of the tip of my pinky, and it was sort of rough around the edges. And when I saw it, I immediately thought, that doesn't look like something that would be caused by a car collision. It kind of looks more like a bite mark or a tooth mark.

It was John's gray hoodie, which appeared to have some sort of puncture mark in it, about the size of the tip of my pinky, and it was sort of rough around the edges. And when I saw it, I immediately thought, that doesn't look like something that would be caused by a car collision. It kind of looks more like a bite mark or a tooth mark.

It was John's gray hoodie, which appeared to have some sort of puncture mark in it, about the size of the tip of my pinky, and it was sort of rough around the edges. And when I saw it, I immediately thought, that doesn't look like something that would be caused by a car collision. It kind of looks more like a bite mark or a tooth mark.

Then on cross-examination, she said that she swabbed the undercarriage of the car and found no traces of blood. She also admitted that any or all of the damage she observed to the car could have been there before the incident.

Then on cross-examination, she said that she swabbed the undercarriage of the car and found no traces of blood. She also admitted that any or all of the damage she observed to the car could have been there before the incident.

Then on cross-examination, she said that she swabbed the undercarriage of the car and found no traces of blood. She also admitted that any or all of the damage she observed to the car could have been there before the incident.

And on cross, a lessee for the defense cleverly pointed out that one of the photos of the rear bumper that she took actually shows a reflection, which basically means that Hartnett claimed that there was twice as much glass on the bumper as was actually there, because the reflection made it look like the glass was doubled.

And on cross, a lessee for the defense cleverly pointed out that one of the photos of the rear bumper that she took actually shows a reflection, which basically means that Hartnett claimed that there was twice as much glass on the bumper as was actually there, because the reflection made it look like the glass was doubled.

And on cross, a lessee for the defense cleverly pointed out that one of the photos of the rear bumper that she took actually shows a reflection, which basically means that Hartnett claimed that there was twice as much glass on the bumper as was actually there, because the reflection made it look like the glass was doubled.

Now, I put this blunder in the same category as the shoe mix-up we had last week. Is it a big deal on its own? Probably not. But could it start to add up in a case where evidence handling is already being called into question? Absolutely. The biggest one on cross, though, came when Alessi asked about the hair and glass found on Karen's car.

Now, I put this blunder in the same category as the shoe mix-up we had last week. Is it a big deal on its own? Probably not. But could it start to add up in a case where evidence handling is already being called into question? Absolutely. The biggest one on cross, though, came when Alessi asked about the hair and glass found on Karen's car.

Now, I put this blunder in the same category as the shoe mix-up we had last week. Is it a big deal on its own? Probably not. But could it start to add up in a case where evidence handling is already being called into question? Absolutely. The biggest one on cross, though, came when Alessi asked about the hair and glass found on Karen's car.

Hartnett testified that she found glass charge resting on the rear bumper, and a hair on the back right side of the car. And she said that neither one were hard to remove. She was able to just pick them up and move them with tweezers.

Hartnett testified that she found glass charge resting on the rear bumper, and a hair on the back right side of the car. And she said that neither one were hard to remove. She was able to just pick them up and move them with tweezers.

Hartnett testified that she found glass charge resting on the rear bumper, and a hair on the back right side of the car. And she said that neither one were hard to remove. She was able to just pick them up and move them with tweezers.