My contention all along is that the collection, testing, storing, and every aspect of the Denver Crime Lab's involvement with the DNA in the JonBenet case (and possibly others as well) cannot be considered reliable because of the mishandling/non-compliance by the Denver Crime Lab with protocol established concerning DNA collection, etc. If the coroner himself did not follow the protocol, who is there to see that those beneath him did? This would include the technicians and anyone involved with the crime-scene DNA collection, transportation, storage, retrieval, testing, etc. Perhaps not everyone involved was in violation, but even ONE person not following protocol contaminates the entire DNA process.<quoted text>
March of 2000 was when there was a problem. Are you thinking everything since then, including JMK is wrong? I would think that to be erroneous. Labs have problems, things are corrected, evidence in question is re-tested and life goes on. I do agree that if during that specific period a court case hinged on forensic evidence tested at that same lab, during that same time frame, there should be a mandate to retest. I would think any reputable lab would do that anyhow.
And who is to say that simply re-testing will correct any deficiency or error since it's possible that the sample itself was contaminated by or during the first testing, therefore all subsequent tests or re-tests would come from contaminated samples?
My point is that once an original sample is contaminated it cannot be "corrected". IOW, once a specimen has been "soiled" THAT PARTICULAR specimen is useless and should be tossed. And in regard to samples many years old, there is no "going back" to obtain NEW SAMPLES. And if perchance it can be possible to obtain a new sample from old evidence, what assurance is there that in the meantime even MORE contamination has not taken place?
So, it all comes back to, get it right the first time or not at all!!