New Trial needed for Darlie Mar 15, 2009 11:21:04 GMT -5
Post by sandbagger1 on Mar 15, 2009 11:21:04 GMT -5
The previously linked article says it was a STR analysis. Saying otherwise is another lie. And it was not a hair sample, so again, you trying to imply that your false statement that it was mitochondrial dna tested is b.s.
Yes, it does mean mitochondrial DNA testing never occurred because it states they did a STR analysis.
IOW, you refuse to backup your statements with documented and linked to proof because you can’t. Originality? You mean lies, don't you? The facts are the facts. Nobody is interested in lies, misrepresentations, half truths. And for someone who is as incoherent as you are most of the time, I wouldn’t claim half the people here have a speech impairment, as if that is in some way relevant or true.