Yes. He's attempting to analogize 42 with fingernails.
the only testimony that's been elicited concerns the tackiness of the blood on the ground. He's not demonstrated that the conditions of collection, the manner of preservation, the conditions of the fingernails are in any way the same as the blood on the ground. Therefore, any testimony that you can somehow analogize these two samples together would be inappropriate for lack of foundation.
I thought the Court already ruled on this, and we argued extensively about it. But what the evidence shows is the bare hands are put in physical contact with the blood, and as I argued previously, are contiguous and continuous with the blood, and then explaining why Mr. Matheson believes it is legitimate to draw inferences about 42 and under the fingernails will do that. Showing the picture will do that. It is the simplest way of conveying that testimony.
He's not demonstrated that the conditions of collection, the manner of preservation, the conditions of the fingernails are in any way the same as the blood on the ground.
the bare hands are put in physical contact with the blood, and as I argued previously, are contiguous and continuous with the blood