In chapter 18, Frediani’s lawyer David Bartick takes an interesting approach regarding the DNA evidence being used in the case. He specifically states, “DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, but in this case, what the DNA is going to stand for is, DOES NOT APPLY.” I think it is very interesting that Bartick takes such a negative stance regarding the new technology and science that could prove his clients innocence. One would think that Frediani would be an extreme advocate of the use of DNA in hopes that it would finally set the truth state regarding his criminal activity. If Frediani had really not committed the murder, I think he would be much supportive of using DNA tests to prove that. All he would need is to prove that his DNA did not match any of that found at the crime scene. However, Bartick with his theatrical opening statement and negative view of DNA, seems almost desperate. Anyone who so blatantly claims their innocence would want to prove their case in the most accurate and efficient way possible, which for Frediani would be the use of DNA. DNA testing has not always been kind to Frediani, but he understand the weight it holds in court and if he could use that to his advantage, I don’t see why he wouldn’t.