I ' m not sure what ' s better , Three fast neutron Cannon II 2 9 , 359 , 999 , 774 . 00 ISKor The Stagnation beams <| sep |> Afinal acertaste em cheio . Liguei para a EDP para verem o meu formulrio de registo online e disseramme que tinha permitido . O problema que eu sei que no fiz isso , porque se h coisa que nunca me esqueo de proibir publicidade e marketing . A senhora disseme que poderia ter havido falha do sistema . Estes tipos so bem sacanas . O azar deles que estou inscrito na lista Robinson e vou fazer queixa para ver se d nalguma coisa . Recomendaes ? <| sep |> Eat some food Skeletor . <| sep |> It is wrong to classify her result as inconsistent DNA . I would argue that the DNA seen in the control sample proved that she ran the test in a contaminated lab . She claims the only contaminant was her DNA , and it was not seen in the actual sample , so it is valid . Protocol says the lab was not clean , and that she doesn ' t know what other foreign DNA was present , so she should have discarded the result and cleaned the lab again . nbsp DNA samples are run in pairs . The actual sample , and a blank control sample . Both are exposed to the laboratory , which may contain contaminants . The theory is that contaminants in the laboratory often show up in both samples and help the tester identify contaminated test results . Of course , there are cases where one or the other sample contains contaminants , but not both . nbsp For this test , the contaminant identified in the control sample was not identified in the actual sample , so she felt justified that only the control sample was contaminated . She also claimed that the contaminate had her DNA profile , though I have not seen the sequence the control sample generated . nbsp Protocol would say that the lab was contaminated that day , and she should have thrown out the test . She felt that only the control sample was contaminated , because she claimed to have known that she was the contaminate , and that her DNA was not found in the actual sample , so it should still be considered valid . nbsp The argument against her is that the control sample showed that her lab was contaminated , suggesting it had not been kept at an appropriate level of cleanliness , and that other foreign DNA from previous samples may have been present in it . Because the lab was contaminated , she should not have presented the results of the test . The high standard is that you do not present results from a contaminated lab . nbsp Because she consumed the entire sample , her motive was to save the test result . Its a stretch to say she wanted to introduce an inconsistent finding . She believed herself . People forgive themselves crimes while blaming others for specks of dust in their eyes . A wise young carpenter once taught me that .