From what has been repeated here, the report seems pretty definitive that it is not forensically sound to use either the results or the evidence to prosecute someone for murder. (It actually goes beyond reasonable doubt for me, to serious doubt). I did not have knowledge that the bra clasp, and the knife were being reviewed. After reviewing the Messai report, I came to the personal conclusion if I were a jury member that it would be those two pieces of evidence and the luminol footprints that would make me find a guilty verdict. That was accounting for the defense's explanation of why they could be tainted that was within the report. I will add that with the luminol footprints, the summary of why those could be refuted was not in enough depth for me, as I wanted to understand more comprehensively how luminol reacts to cleaning agents, orange juice etc.
The Messai report seemed to say (to me) that Filomena and the Postal Police's memory of the placement of the glass meant definitively that the break-in was staged. The rest of the evidence pointing to the staging was a buttressing of their eyewitness memory. I personally find a memory of glass placement, prior to knowing a murder took place, to be unreliable. The rest of the evidence went on like this, and I found the defense's explanation, within the Messai report to introduce reasonable doubt.
As I have said previously, if I am required by the courts to believe that the break-in was staged, then I would likely find them guilty as accessories, not as murderers.
