The initial DNA report from the FDLE included the following two items: ABSlOO Swabs of gloves from inside BMW ABSlOl Swabs of blue gloves from inside BMW Sprague’s police report lists: ABS99 SWABS OF TRIGGER AND GRIP ON S&W .38 SPECIAL REVOLVER FOR TOUCH DNA collected 1417 hours ABSIOO SWABS OF SUSPECTED BLOOD STAINS ON GLOVES FROM INSIDE BMW collected 1425 hours ABSlOl SWABS OF BLUE GLOVES FROM INSIDE BMW FOR WEARER DNA collected 1417 hours ABSIOZ SWABS OF SUSPECTED BLOOD STAIN ON RIGHT SHOE OF PAIR OF BROWN SURVIVORS BOOTS collected 1417 hours Senior Crime- Scene Technician Alison Smolarek has a bachelors degree in forensic science, and a masters degree in criminal justice. Smolarek is certified through classes, and the Intemational Association for Identification, with extensive study and practice in the reconstruction of crime scenes. Smolarek has been an evidence technician for 13 years with three institutions, and a crime-scene supervisor. Smolarek wears surgical-type gloves every day, and works with male detectives with large hands who also wear the gloves. Smolarek even put on a pair of two blue gloves to handle evidence, each time she took the stand at Scott Love's trial. So what did Smolarek claim on the stand that she did with all the gloves collected? She claimed that she swabbed all five of them together with a single swab, for "wearer DNA." Even though she knows it is prohibitively unlikely for a single person to have worn all five gloves, or maybe eight gloves including two different colors from two distinct groups, during a single activity or time period. So right off, Smolarek manufactured garbage evidence, cross contaminating all the gloves which could have been worn by different people at different times. But on top of that, she made the outrageous claim that she swabbed the inside of all the gloves with one swab, and the outside of only the gloves that had apparent blood stains with another swab, to determine wearer and victim. Clearly DNA on the "inside" swab could have come from a glove that was not even swabbed for blood stains. Nothing like this ever came up in depositions. And nor did any lawyer think to ask, because it was clear from the documents that Smolarek swabbed the the suspected blood stains for DNA on the three loose gloves that had "suspected blood" stains. And she swabbed the group with the booties all over for "wearer DNA." If a glove has blood, you want to know whose blood it is. Otherwise you want to know who touched it. Nowhere was it mentioned that "wearer DN " was specifically what Smolarek thought was the inside of the glove. Nowhere was it mentioned that she presumed the suspected blood stains were always on what was the outside of the glove when it got stained. And certainly nowhere was it mentioned that she swabbed what she thought was the inside of all five (or eight) gloves with one swab for "wearer DNA" even when some of those gloves did not have apparent blood stains. The supposed insides of gloves that did not have blood stains, were swabbed together with the insides of the gloves that did appear to have blood. So it was not even determining the wearer of the glove that supposedly had blood. It was just a crazy jumble of contact DNA from inside a trashbag in a car where James Mulrenin sat and drank and did who knows what with Mandi, that cannot therefore be used for anything. So Love's lawyer’s mind was just blown, as was the jury’s, and he was not at all prepared to defend Smolarek’s disgraceful claim that this clueless process produced evidence of wearer and victim. It was not even possible to know what was the inside or outside of even one glove. It was just a preconception that the ones with stains, the stains were on the outside. Smolarek knows from her experience, that people usually peel these gloves off inside out. But not always. And when they do, the fingertips usually remain partially inside out, but not always. Some of these gloves she swabbed clearly had some fingertips inside out. Smolarek didn't mention anything like that when she first made her "wearer DNA" claim. III-61