Melissa’s luminal mark, perjury of V ESR scientist

Hey Jury what did you make out of V saying the luminal mark was from a male? The carpet in that house had been down for about two years. I had managed it the entire time. I KNOW for a fact that no person has bled onto the carpet at the base of the portacot in that time. The Crown and ESR said they didn't take photos of that luminal mark, they didn't think to. They didn't think to measure the luminal mark or get a precise location or description of it either. They did so for the hair sample and old blood spots from Melissa picking at school sores on herself that were on her mattress blanket though. They thought to do it for that. What ESR and police would go to what they consider a crime scene and not take photos of a luminal mark they find where I have told them a child fell? Are our police and ESR that incompetent? I think the photos will look exactly like Melissa’s cheek mark, that's why they weren't given over. My lawyer and I were not given any ESR results until nearly two years later, which was only a hand written report by V saying the result was a males. Was the luminal factual evidence they never handed over, part of what made them believe there was no suspicious circumstances and no evidence of assault and withdraw my fist charge I wonder? V was very awkward and appeared guilty under oath in her video link when she commented on it and quickly changed the subject, just as she did in her written statement. Defence was told there was never negatives or sd memory card with the scene photographs on it, and that it was downloaded immediately to a hard-drive from the camera. All the better an excuse to edit only what photos they want to give defence. I contacted ESR Wellington, just for them to answer yes or no that the DNA analysis machines give an evidential printout (as we have never been given one) and they hedged around the question and played dumb on it. They eventually passed it on to Auckland, suspicious on its own, as this is where V works. They must have anticipated my e-mails to have sent them on to Auckland and V’s sister; and for the Crown prosecutor to get up in arms as soon as I contacted them. I don't see how any DNA scientist in New Zealand can not give a yes or no answer on whether the machines they work with give an evidential printout, without having to pass my e-mails on to the police. I then was given a bail condition that I am not to contact any witness's, their employers or their organisations. So jury what can you 'infer' with that? The inferring works both ways even without taking my word that the luminal mark at the base of the portacot is NOT from a male, but MUST be from Melissa. Never has any evidence that the luminal mark is from a male been brought forward. I have requested the information from ESR and they have refused, saying it would violate the "unknown males" privacy. ESR are very obstructive and set out to give the police what they wanted. The police when they sent a request to V about two years after the incident and only when they recharged me, told V that medical professionals had concluded Melissa was extremely violently shaken, when wanting her to test Melissa luminal positive mark from the impact of her cheek on the carpet. So why did she have to know the alleged cause of death and what the paediatricians had to have it be to save face, to do this analysis?