Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[parrot]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

In one of Brendan's early statements - which, yes, I think we all take with a grain of salt regardless - he had Steven taking Theresa to "the pit" in the RAV4, killing her there, then bringing her body back to the house/garage in a sled of some type. Without knowing what kind of forensic work might have been done a the pit, that would largely fit.

 

[Road Warriors]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

I'm just starting to watch this but have heard what happens for the most part. I was wondering does the JURY know about the dna tube with the needle hole in the top?

Maybe it'll come up in future episodes since I'm only on #3 I think.

The "dna tube" is called a "vacutainer" and it's no different than those used to take blood samples in every hospital. It's vacuum sealed and is filled by puncturing the top with a two-headed needle with the other end in a vein. The vacuum in the tube then draws the blood into the tube. The broken seal on the box might be a red flag but the hole in the top of the tube doesn't really mean anything.

2 things on this.

1. The documentary stated that the lab that handled this blood does not have the punctured top of a standard blood draw tube ( as you state, vacutainer ).

2. This blood sample was being stored in a archived evidence collection, and had to have external elements added to it ( EDTA, IIRC ). This would not have been a direct draw from SA, but a sample that was modified to remain in liquid form over time. I don't know for sure, but I can imagine that such a sample container would not include a punctured top.

 

[MattFancy]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

In one of Brendan's early statements - which, yes, I think we all take with a grain of salt regardless - he had Steven taking Theresa to "the pit" in the RAV4, killing her there, then bringing her body back to the house/garage in a sled of some type. Without knowing what kind of forensic work might have been done a the pit, that would largely fit.

Again, that could be plausible, but then why would there be a bullet with her DNA in the garage? Or are we just saying that was planted there?

 

[matttyl]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

In one of Brendan's early statements - which, yes, I think we all take with a grain of salt regardless - he had Steven taking Theresa to "the pit" in the RAV4, killing her there, then bringing her body back to the house/garage in a sled of some type. Without knowing what kind of forensic work might have been done a the pit, that would largely fit.

Again, that could be plausible, but then why would there be a bullet with her DNA in the garage? Or are we just saying that was planted there?

Again, trying to make the evidence fit with SA actually killing her - he shot her, at least once, and more than likely multiple times. Bullets were either in the body, or had gone "through and through". Somehow SA collected these (maybe her body was up against something that the bullets wouldn't penetrate when she was shot, and he gathered others from the fire remains - potentially from one of the other burn locations). He collected some or all of these bullets, and for some dumb reason stored this specific evidence in his garage - say in a small box or something. During a search this box gets overturned or something, and the contents spill out on the floor. Was this the only bullet found on his floor, or was it the only bullet found with her DNA on it?

 

[Dickies]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

This is simply not true. What most people from Wisconsin don't want to hear is people from other states claiming he is obviously innocent, the case was thin, and he should be freed immediately. Then we really enjoy the IQ jokes too and the comments about manitowoc county, etc etc. My memories of Manitowoc are from when I have run the last two marathons through three of the neighboring cities and Manitowoc. My memories are of a beautiful maritime community. Not the way people from meccas such as Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots.

I fully realize there are always two sides to every story. I also realize that a lot of the details in this case are very head scratching.

But let's not pretend that the people from out of state are super open minded about this case. They explain away everything that doesn't fit the narrative that this was a frame job. To refer to this case as thin is the biggest joke. This case was nowhere near thin. The only way you can consider this case thin is is you think the cops set him up for all of it, which is certainly possible, but it is still not a slam dunk guarantee. Otherwise you have to clear your head of his past actions, ignore the *67 weirdness on the day of her disappearance, ignore her car on his property, ignore her remains on his property, believe that 100% of what Dassey said was his wild imagination, ignore the fact that he owned a gun and shouldn't have, ignore his dna in the car, ignore it on the latch, etc etc. So yes I get that you can explain these things away by calling it a frame up job, but that is the only way. And a 3 county frame up job that has never had even a whisper of proof is pretty rare. The only "proof" people offer are things that already assume it was a frame job, which of course makes them not proof.

The truth is almost always in between. I think he did it, but I also think the cops probably tried to bolster the case. I dislike that, but I have no proof of it. Neither does anybody else.

1. I don't think anybody has said he is clearly innocent, but IMHO he pretty clearly should have been found 'not guilty'. There is a difference between those two

2. Most people in Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots

3. I have probably read more about this case than I care to admit from both sides. I keep hearing from Kratz and everyone who wants to bury their heads in the sand that the documentary left out "mountains of evidence" and it is simply not true. There are maybe 5 pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented that were left out and they are all very weak/irrelevant.

 

[Max Power]

http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-01-06/the-most-garbage-people-in-making-a-murderer-ranked-in-order-of-their-loathsomeness/

Fun read.

 

[MattFancy]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

In one of Brendan's early statements - which, yes, I think we all take with a grain of salt regardless - he had Steven taking Theresa to "the pit" in the RAV4, killing her there, then bringing her body back to the house/garage in a sled of some type. Without knowing what kind of forensic work might have been done a the pit, that would largely fit.

Again, that could be plausible, but then why would there be a bullet with her DNA in the garage? Or are we just saying that was planted there?

Again, trying to make the evidence fit with SA actually killing her - he shot her, at least once, and more than likely multiple times. Bullets were either in the body, or had gone "through and through". Somehow SA collected these (maybe her body was up against something that the bullets wouldn't penetrate when she was shot, and he gathered others from the fire remains - potentially from one of the other burn locations). He collected some or all of these bullets, and for some dumb reason stored this specific evidence in his garage - say in a small box or something. During a search this box gets overturned or something, and the contents spill out on the floor. Was this the only bullet found on his floor, or was it the only bullet found with her DNA on it?

They found multiples, but only one with her DNA on it.

I like this back and forth of scenarios we have going on here haha. I still maintain that I'm not 100% sure he's innocent, but I feel very confident that there was evidence planted by the police. Could it have played out like you suggested? Yeah sure. But that's not how the case was presented. As it was presented, there's just way too many questions in my mind about if it happened that way, then where is A, B and C?

 

[SIDA!]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

In one of Brendan's early statements - which, yes, I think we all take with a grain of salt regardless - he had Steven taking Theresa to "the pit" in the RAV4, killing her there, then bringing her body back to the house/garage in a sled of some type. Without knowing what kind of forensic work might have been done a the pit, that would largely fit.

Again, that could be plausible, but then why would there be a bullet with her DNA in the garage? Or are we just saying that was planted there?

Again, trying to make the evidence fit with SA actually killing her - he shot her, at least once, and more than likely multiple times. Bullets were either in the body, or had gone "through and through". Somehow SA collected these (maybe her body was up against something that the bullets wouldn't penetrate when she was shot, and he gathered others from the fire remains - potentially from one of the other burn locations). He collected some or all of these bullets, and for some dumb reason stored this specific evidence in his garage - say in a small box or something. During a search this box gets overturned or something, and the contents spill out on the floor. Was this the only bullet found on his floor, or was it the only bullet found with her DNA on it?

They found multiples, but only one with her DNA on it.

Multiple bullets or multiple shells?

I thought it was one bullet found...with multiple shell casings.

 

[MattFancy]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

In one of Brendan's early statements - which, yes, I think we all take with a grain of salt regardless - he had Steven taking Theresa to "the pit" in the RAV4, killing her there, then bringing her body back to the house/garage in a sled of some type. Without knowing what kind of forensic work might have been done a the pit, that would largely fit.

Again, that could be plausible, but then why would there be a bullet with her DNA in the garage? Or are we just saying that was planted there?

Again, trying to make the evidence fit with SA actually killing her - he shot her, at least once, and more than likely multiple times. Bullets were either in the body, or had gone "through and through". Somehow SA collected these (maybe her body was up against something that the bullets wouldn't penetrate when she was shot, and he gathered others from the fire remains - potentially from one of the other burn locations). He collected some or all of these bullets, and for some dumb reason stored this specific evidence in his garage - say in a small box or something. During a search this box gets overturned or something, and the contents spill out on the floor. Was this the only bullet found on his floor, or was it the only bullet found with her DNA on it?

They found multiples, but only one with her DNA on it.

Multiple bullets or multiple shells?

I thought it was one bullet found...with multiple shell casings.

You may be right on that one. I can't remember exactly how it was phrased

 

[parrot]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

I'm just starting to watch this but have heard what happens for the most part. I was wondering does the JURY know about the dna tube with the needle hole in the top?

Maybe it'll come up in future episodes since I'm only on #3 I think.

The "dna tube" is called a "vacutainer" and it's no different than those used to take blood samples in every hospital. It's vacuum sealed and is filled by puncturing the top with a two-headed needle with the other end in a vein. The vacuum in the tube then draws the blood into the tube. The broken seal on the box might be a red flag but the hole in the top of the tube doesn't really mean anything.

2 things on this.

1. The documentary stated that the lab that handled this blood does not have the punctured top of a standard blood draw tube ( as you state, vacutainer ).

2. This blood sample was being stored in a archived evidence collection, and had to have external elements added to it ( EDTA, IIRC ). This would not have been a direct draw from SA, but a sample that was modified to remain in liquid form over time. I don't know for sure, but I can imagine that such a sample container would not include a punctured top.

As I already stated, the tube would have been punctured when the blood was collected, the lab would have received it that way.

The EDTA is already in the vacutainer. In fact if you look at the close up of the actual tube when they open the box it says "EDTA" right on the side of it.

 

[LAUNCH]

Making a Murderer' follow-up special coming from Investigation Discovery

"We are excited to share with viewers the latest in this compelling saga," said Henry Schleiff, group president of Investigation Discovery, American Heroes Channel and Destination America. "Following our investigation, we expect that Front Page: The Steven Avery Story will present crucial testimony and information that addresses many of the questions surrounding Steven Avery."

ID is partnering with NBC News' Peacock Productions for the special edition, and NBC correspondent Keith Morrison will host.

Front Page: The Steven Avery Story will air in late January.

'Making a Murderer' creators aren't done yet: 'We still speak to Steven'The Making duo (pictured above, Demos left and Ricciardi at right) was there roughly from the time of the arrest through Avery's conviction, capturing hours of intimate moments with his family members, lawyers and other players. And though the series debuted Dec. 18, they haven't stopped.

"The original footage is still growing," Demos told Mashable in a phone interview Tuesday. "We are continuing to document the story. We still speak to Steven, we're still recording calls with him. In a way, we're still in production."

 

[matttyl]

I like this back and forth of scenarios we have going on here haha. I still maintain that I'm not 100% sure he's innocent, but I feel very confident that there was evidence planted by the police. Could it have played out like you suggested? Yeah sure. But that's not how the case was presented. As it was presented, there's just way too many questions in my mind about if it happened that way, then where is A, B and C?

You know, he could have still done it in a way other than how the prosecution described.....and the police still planted evidence. That isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

 

[mitchh1124]

That makes no sense about the top of test tube.

When I have done blood work they lady fills it straight into the test tube and puts the top on it...poking a hole in it would not be sterile. It is not a multi use plunge top from s vial.

 

[MattFancy]

I like this back and forth of scenarios we have going on here haha. I still maintain that I'm not 100% sure he's innocent, but I feel very confident that there was evidence planted by the police. Could it have played out like you suggested? Yeah sure. But that's not how the case was presented. As it was presented, there's just way too many questions in my mind about if it happened that way, then where is A, B and C?

You know, he could have still done it in a way other than how the prosecution described.....and the police still planted evidence. That isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

Agreed. That was my problem with voting in the poll thread. I'm not certain he didn't do it, but I'm pretty certain the cops planted evidence against him.

I still can't grasp how the jury could have convicted without a reasonable doubt though. That's my issue. With how all the facts were laid out in the case, there's just too many holes that you can poke.

 

[Billy Bats]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

In one of Brendan's early statements - which, yes, I think we all take with a grain of salt regardless - he had Steven taking Theresa to "the pit" in the RAV4, killing her there, then bringing her body back to the house/garage in a sled of some type. Without knowing what kind of forensic work might have been done a the pit, that would largely fit.

Again, that could be plausible, but then why would there be a bullet with her DNA in the garage? Or are we just saying that was planted there?

Again, trying to make the evidence fit with SA actually killing her - he shot her, at least once, and more than likely multiple times. Bullets were either in the body, or had gone "through and through". Somehow SA collected these (maybe her body was up against something that the bullets wouldn't penetrate when she was shot, and he gathered others from the fire remains - potentially from one of the other burn locations). He collected some or all of these bullets, and for some dumb reason stored this specific evidence in his garage - say in a small box or something. During a search this box gets overturned or something, and the contents spill out on the floor. Was this the only bullet found on his floor, or was it the only bullet found with her DNA on it?

They found multiples, but only one with her DNA on it.

Multiple bullets or multiple shells?I thought it was one bullet found...with multiple shell casings.

You may be right on that one. I can't remember exactly how it was phrased

He is correct, one bullet, 12 casings.ETA: which in a recent Kratz interview posted in here yesterday, he went from a throat slash to a scratch on her neck and she was now murdered in the garage by being shot 12 times.

 

[parrot]

That makes no sense about the top of test tube.

When I have done blood work they lady fills it straight into the test tube and puts the top on it...poking a hole in it would not be sterile. It is not a multi use plunge top from s vial.

There are videos linked showing exactly how it's done. It involves poking a hole it in. There are multiple examples of medical professionals, including nurses, labtechs, and even doctors attesting to it on the related subreddit....

I worked in a medical lab for years, and have a comment about the EDTA tube issue.

Now, I won't get into the issue of the tampering seals being cut or anything like that, my comment is solely about the small dot of blood on the stopper of the tube and everyone questioning it.

That tube is an EDTA lavender topped tube usually used for tests that require uncoagulated whole blood such as a complete blood count or the like.

EDTA is an anti-coagulant and is present in the tube to keep the blood from clotting so the blood can be tested appropriately.

Those tubes are called "vacutainer" tubes and literally suck the blood out of you during venipuncture. To get the blood into the tube, you either draw the blood directly from a vein into the tube or you pierce the stopper with a syringe already containing blood to fill the tube.

The EDTA to blood mixture is important for proper testing etc, so the amount of vacuum in the tube is specific to only draw the needed amount for proper ratio.

Now, it is possible to remove the stopper and fill the tube "manually", but that is very uncommon and not really an accepted medical process (although it is occasionally done).

The "dot" of blood on the stopper is NOT indicative of tampering, but is actually what is present if the tube/drawing procedure is performed according to accepted guidelines.

I just wanted to give everyone this bit of info so as to keep the truth present in this case.

Thanks!

Edit: Here is a Youtube video showing a blood draw using an EDTA tube. You can clearly see the tube's stopper being pierced with the aforementioned needle.

This pic shows the fill tolerances of a standard ETDA vacutainer tube).

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ylijr/i_have_a_comment_about_the_blood_tube/

I don't know why these people would lie to protect the Manitowoc Sheriff's dept? People need to let this particular angle go.

 

[matttyl]

That makes no sense about the top of test tube.

When I have done blood work they lady fills it straight into the test tube and puts the top on it...poking a hole in it would not be sterile. It is not a multi use plunge top from s vial.

This is how they do it. Go to about 2:10 in the video

I don't think the hole in the top of it means anything. The tape being cut may, but not the hole.

 

[mitchh1124]

Good find.

I also found this in the same thread

"

The blood was however used for DNA testing for the 1985 case before it was sealed into the evidence locker; In the lab, they do not puncture the tops, but to ensure a clean sample, they sanitize the vial then remove the stopper, draw their sample, and replace the stopper. While sanitizing the vial, the blood would be cleaned off, and since it is a self-sealing lid, the hole is closed and would therefore not leak a new blood drop. That is my first issue. The blood also seemed overly red to me. Oxidation of the Iron rich hemoglobin causes blood to turn black and flakey over time, and certainly from 1985-2005 would be plenty of time for that to occur. EDTA vials contain the EDTA inside and in fact the blood doesn't mix thoroughly with it until the procedural shake after the draw. As such, the drop on the lid shouldn't have any EDTA in it and thus should be black, dehydrated, and flaky. However, if it was drawn from the vial after mixing, a few months exposure to oxygen, even with EDTA present, some dehydration would occur, resulting in the mostly dry, reddish blob on the lid. This is why I believe there was an unauthorized draw from that vial."

 

[matttyl]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

 

[parrot]

Good find.

I also found this in the same thread

"

The blood was however used for DNA testing for the 1985 case before it was sealed into the evidence locker; In the lab, they do not puncture the tops, but to ensure a clean sample, they sanitize the vial then remove the stopper, draw their sample, and replace the stopper. While sanitizing the vial, the blood would be cleaned off, and since it is a self-sealing lid, the hole is closed and would therefore not leak a new blood drop. That is my first issue. The blood also seemed overly red to me. Oxidation of the Iron rich hemoglobin causes blood to turn black and flakey over time, and certainly from 1985-2005 would be plenty of time for that to occur. EDTA vials contain the EDTA inside and in fact the blood doesn't mix thoroughly with it until the procedural shake after the draw. As such, the drop on the lid shouldn't have any EDTA in it and thus should be black, dehydrated, and flaky. However, if it was drawn from the vial after mixing, a few months exposure to oxygen, even with EDTA present, some dehydration would occur, resulting in the mostly dry, reddish blob on the lid. This is why I believe there was an unauthorized draw from that vial."

I couldn't grab a perfectly clear picture, but I don't see any sign of blood on the lid. If there is some there, it definitely looks black.

http://i.imgur.com/UQLJ5bz.jpg?1

 

[SIDA!]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

Then how did the key get in the room, avery's blood get in the car or the bullet get in the garage.

I can't wrap my head around a scenario of any kind at the moment that doesn't involved corruption and planting of evidence.

 

[matttyl]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

Then how did the key get in the room, avery's blood get in the car or the bullet get in the garage.

I can't wrap my head around a scenario of any kind at the moment that doesn't involved corruption and planting of evidence.

Sure that was planted, just not by the police. Makes a lot of sense if the real killer was an Avery and they wanted Steven to go down for it.

Edit - yeah, now that I think about it. Where would they (easily) get Steven's blood, and how did they get TH's DNA for the bullet. Not sure on either.

 

[MattFancy]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

Then how did the key get in the room, avery's blood get in the car or the bullet get in the garage.

I can't wrap my head around a scenario of any kind at the moment that doesn't involved corruption and planting of evidence.

Sure that was planted, just not by the police. Makes a lot of sense if the real killer was an Avery and they wanted Steven to go down for it.

That's an angle that is entirely possible. Could be jealousy over him about to be getting a big pay day. They knew the cops had it out for him and they did it. Or at least added the cops in some of placements.

 

[matttyl]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

Then how did the key get in the room, avery's blood get in the car or the bullet get in the garage.

I can't wrap my head around a scenario of any kind at the moment that doesn't involved corruption and planting of evidence.

Sure that was planted, just not by the police. Makes a lot of sense if the real killer was an Avery and they wanted Steven to go down for it.

That's an angle that is entirely possible. Could be jealousy over him about to be getting a big pay day. They knew the cops had it out for him and they did it. Or at least added the cops in some of placements.

I edited my above post. If this is this theory - how did another Avery get Steven's blood to put in the SUV? Moreover, how did they get Teresa's DNA to go on the bullet. And which Avery would have been smart enough to do both without getting caught?

 

[parrot]

Another thing about that vial, it looks pretty freakin' full to me. If they pulled blood out of that, they didn't pull very much (or maybe they put something back in like we used to do with Dad's whiskey bottle).

 

[matttyl]

Another thing about that vial, it looks pretty freakin' full to me. If they pulled blood out of that, they didn't pull very much (or maybe they put something back in like we used to do with Dad's whiskey bottle).

I think it just shows a lot of blood "sticking" to the outside of the container.

 

[MattFancy]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

Then how did the key get in the room, avery's blood get in the car or the bullet get in the garage.

I can't wrap my head around a scenario of any kind at the moment that doesn't involved corruption and planting of evidence.

Sure that was planted, just not by the police. Makes a lot of sense if the real killer was an Avery and they wanted Steven to go down for it.

That's an angle that is entirely possible. Could be jealousy over him about to be getting a big pay day. They knew the cops had it out for him and they did it. Or at least added the cops in some of placements.

I edited my above post. If this is this theory - how did another Avery get Steven's blood to put in the SUV? Moreover, how did they get Teresa's DNA to go on the bullet. And which Avery would have been smart enough to do both without getting caught?

Another family member could have done it, and the cops figure it was Steven the whole time, work to plant evidence to build a strong case against him. Meanwhile, they get the wrong Avery.

Remember, no one else was questioned but Steven. That's a huge family property. Certainly possible that another family member did it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

1. I don't think anybody has said he is clearly innocent, but IMHO he pretty clearly should have been found 'not guilty'. There is a difference between those two

2. Most people in Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots

3. I have probably read more about this case than I care to admit from both sides. I keep hearing from Kratz and everyone who wants to bury their heads in the sand that the documentary left out "mountains of evidence" and it is simply not true. There are maybe 5 pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented that were left out and they are all very weak/irrelevant.

I keep hearing this, but they simply aren't weak and irrelevant. The sweat on the hood latch is irrelevant? It is only irrelevant if you simply say all evidence was planted. Calling somebody twice on the day they died using *67 when you left a contact phone number that didn't match your own? The rifle that matched the bullet was Avery's and is irrelevant only if you think they planted the bullet. The bones being intertwined with tire radial belts is pretty important too.

So was it mountains of evidence left out? No, but the only way you think these are irrelevant is if you are convinced all the evidence was fabricated.

 

[parrot]

Another thing about that vial, it looks pretty freakin' full to me. If they pulled blood out of that, they didn't pull very much (or maybe they put something back in like we used to do with Dad's whiskey bottle).

I think it just shows a lot of blood "sticking" to the outside of the container.

That could be I guess, though I just watched that part of the doc and it looks full on film too.

 

[matttyl]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

I was speaking as a member of the jury in response to the query "how did the jury find him guilty?". The defense was not allowed to put forth any alternative suspects and put up the defense that he was framed by the police.

Did another Avery frame him? I have to admit that is an angle I hadn't considered.

See this I don't get either. If you voted not guilty, are you saying you believe everything from the defense? And if you vote guilty are you saying you believe everything from the prosecution? If you thought that he did kill her, but didn't do it in the trailer or the garage (like the prosecution says), do you vote guilty (that he killed her), or not guilty (cause it didn't happen the way they say it did)? Conversely, if you think he didn't do it - but someone other than the police did (and that she was in fact murdered so as to rule our suicide) you can still vote not guilty because you don't think he was her killer, correct?

 

[matttyl]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

Then how did the key get in the room, avery's blood get in the car or the bullet get in the garage.

I can't wrap my head around a scenario of any kind at the moment that doesn't involved corruption and planting of evidence.

Sure that was planted, just not by the police. Makes a lot of sense if the real killer was an Avery and they wanted Steven to go down for it.

That's an angle that is entirely possible. Could be jealousy over him about to be getting a big pay day. They knew the cops had it out for him and they did it. Or at least added the cops in some of placements.

I edited my above post. If this is this theory - how did another Avery get Steven's blood to put in the SUV? Moreover, how did they get Teresa's DNA to go on the bullet. And which Avery would have been smart enough to do both without getting caught?

Another family member could have done it, and the cops figure it was Steven the whole time, work to plant evidence to build a strong case against him. Meanwhile, they get the wrong Avery.

Remember, no one else was questioned but Steven. That's a huge family property. Certainly possible that another family member did it.

Right, but you're still working on the premise of planted evidence. I'm still trying to see if there is an explication where that didn't happen, and SA still does it - and make it all fit with the evidence we have.

 

[jamny]

Good find.

I also found this in the same thread

"

The blood was however used for DNA testing for the 1985 case before it was sealed into the evidence locker; In the lab, they do not puncture the tops, but to ensure a clean sample, they sanitize the vial then remove the stopper, draw their sample, and replace the stopper. While sanitizing the vial, the blood would be cleaned off, and since it is a self-sealing lid, the hole is closed and would therefore not leak a new blood drop. That is my first issue. The blood also seemed overly red to me. Oxidation of the Iron rich hemoglobin causes blood to turn black and flakey over time, and certainly from 1985-2005 would be plenty of time for that to occur. EDTA vials contain the EDTA inside and in fact the blood doesn't mix thoroughly with it until the procedural shake after the draw. As such, the drop on the lid shouldn't have any EDTA in it and thus should be black, dehydrated, and flaky. However, if it was drawn from the vial after mixing, a few months exposure to oxygen, even with EDTA present, some dehydration would occur, resulting in the mostly dry, reddish blob on the lid. This is why I believe there was an unauthorized draw from that vial."

I couldn't grab a perfectly clear picture, but I don't see any sign of blood on the lid. If there is some there, it definitely looks black.

http://i.imgur.com/UQLJ5bz.jpg?1

Great picture.

Using the device shown in the video, wouldn't the puncture hole be almost exactly in the center of the top? This doesn't even look close.

 

[matttyl]

1. I don't think anybody has said he is clearly innocent, but IMHO he pretty clearly should have been found 'not guilty'. There is a difference between those two

2. Most people in Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots

3. I have probably read more about this case than I care to admit from both sides. I keep hearing from Kratz and everyone who wants to bury their heads in the sand that the documentary left out "mountains of evidence" and it is simply not true. There are maybe 5 pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented that were left out and they are all very weak/irrelevant.

I keep hearing this, but they simply aren't weak and irrelevant. The sweat on the hood latch is irrelevant? It is only irrelevant if you simply say all evidence was planted. Calling somebody twice on the day they died using *67 when you left a contact phone number that didn't match your own? The rifle that matched the bullet was Avery's and is irrelevant only if you think they planted the bullet. The bones being intertwined with tire radial belts is pretty important too.

So was it mountains of evidence left out? No, but the only way you think these are irrelevant is if you are convinced all the evidence was fabricated.

I'm mulling over the sweat thing - and the battery thing (no battery was in the RAV4 when they found it, correct?). So lets say he removed the battery from the car himself - that would explain both, but not necessarily make him a murderer. Now why would he do that? Not sure. Has he given any reason as to why no battery and how his sweat could have gotten there?

So she was shot - and with that bullet. If you're doing this to frame Avery from the get go - you'd be sure to fire that bullet from his gun. (Again may point to an Avery). Or that bullet didn't hit her at all, and her DNA was placed on it afterwards and the bullet itself was planted there to be found.

As to the bones being "intertwined" - what does that mean? I haven't heard that from any actual source yet. The bones were the size of a usb thumb drive or smaller (as in the teeth), so how could those be "intertwined" in anything?

 

[matttyl]

Good find.

I also found this in the same thread

"

The blood was however used for DNA testing for the 1985 case before it was sealed into the evidence locker; In the lab, they do not puncture the tops, but to ensure a clean sample, they sanitize the vial then remove the stopper, draw their sample, and replace the stopper. While sanitizing the vial, the blood would be cleaned off, and since it is a self-sealing lid, the hole is closed and would therefore not leak a new blood drop. That is my first issue. The blood also seemed overly red to me. Oxidation of the Iron rich hemoglobin causes blood to turn black and flakey over time, and certainly from 1985-2005 would be plenty of time for that to occur. EDTA vials contain the EDTA inside and in fact the blood doesn't mix thoroughly with it until the procedural shake after the draw. As such, the drop on the lid shouldn't have any EDTA in it and thus should be black, dehydrated, and flaky. However, if it was drawn from the vial after mixing, a few months exposure to oxygen, even with EDTA present, some dehydration would occur, resulting in the mostly dry, reddish blob on the lid. This is why I believe there was an unauthorized draw from that vial."

I couldn't grab a perfectly clear picture, but I don't see any sign of blood on the lid. If there is some there, it definitely looks black.

http://i.imgur.com/UQLJ5bz.jpg?1

Great picture.

Using the device shown in the video, wouldn't the puncture hole be almost exactly in the center of the top? This doesn't even look close.

Nope. The needle in the device in the video doesn't come "straight out" - it's off center by a little bit.

 

[jamny]

Good find.

I also found this in the same thread

"

The blood was however used for DNA testing for the 1985 case before it was sealed into the evidence locker; In the lab, they do not puncture the tops, but to ensure a clean sample, they sanitize the vial then remove the stopper, draw their sample, and replace the stopper. While sanitizing the vial, the blood would be cleaned off, and since it is a self-sealing lid, the hole is closed and would therefore not leak a new blood drop. That is my first issue. The blood also seemed overly red to me. Oxidation of the Iron rich hemoglobin causes blood to turn black and flakey over time, and certainly from 1985-2005 would be plenty of time for that to occur. EDTA vials contain the EDTA inside and in fact the blood doesn't mix thoroughly with it until the procedural shake after the draw. As such, the drop on the lid shouldn't have any EDTA in it and thus should be black, dehydrated, and flaky. However, if it was drawn from the vial after mixing, a few months exposure to oxygen, even with EDTA present, some dehydration would occur, resulting in the mostly dry, reddish blob on the lid. This is why I believe there was an unauthorized draw from that vial."

I couldn't grab a perfectly clear picture, but I don't see any sign of blood on the lid. If there is some there, it definitely looks black.

http://i.imgur.com/UQLJ5bz.jpg?1

Great picture.

Using the device shown in the video, wouldn't the puncture hole be almost exactly in the center of the top? This doesn't even look close.

Nope. The needle in the device in the video doesn't come "straight out" - it's off center by a little bit.

ok...thx

 

[The Gator]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

 

[matttyl]

To find Avery not guilty you have to find the police department guilty

Why? I don't understand this connection. You could find him not guilty, because you think that Dassey did it - or another of the Avery bunch, or Teresa's brother, or literally anyone else.

I was speaking as a member of the jury in response to the query "how did the jury find him guilty?". The defense was not allowed to put forth any alternative suspects and put up the defense that he was framed by the police.

Did another Avery frame him? I have to admit that is an angle I hadn't considered.

See this I don't get either. If you voted not guilty, are you saying you believe everything from the defense? And if you vote guilty are you saying you believe everything from the prosecution? If you thought that he did kill her, but didn't do it in the trailer or the garage (like the prosecution says), do you vote guilty (that he killed her), or not guilty (cause it didn't happen the way they say it did)? Conversely, if you think he didn't do it - but someone other than the police did (and that she was in fact murdered so as to rule our suicide) you can still vote not guilty because you don't think he was her killer, correct?

If you think he's guilty of murder you vote guilty and if you don't you don't. I think in this case, with the evidence presented, to find him not guilty you most likely buy into the defense's theory of planted evidence. Sure, other reasons are possible but I find them unlikely.

Theory of planted evidence is one thing - I thought from the original quote of yours here you meant to say that to find SA not guilty [of murder] means you have to find the police department guilty [of murder] - sorry if I misread that. I can believe the police department is guilty of planting evidence far more easily than finding them guilty of murder.

 

[Billy Bats]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

 

[matttyl]

Good find.

I also found this in the same thread

"

The blood was however used for DNA testing for the 1985 case before it was sealed into the evidence locker; In the lab, they do not puncture the tops, but to ensure a clean sample, they sanitize the vial then remove the stopper, draw their sample, and replace the stopper. While sanitizing the vial, the blood would be cleaned off, and since it is a self-sealing lid, the hole is closed and would therefore not leak a new blood drop. That is my first issue. The blood also seemed overly red to me. Oxidation of the Iron rich hemoglobin causes blood to turn black and flakey over time, and certainly from 1985-2005 would be plenty of time for that to occur. EDTA vials contain the EDTA inside and in fact the blood doesn't mix thoroughly with it until the procedural shake after the draw. As such, the drop on the lid shouldn't have any EDTA in it and thus should be black, dehydrated, and flaky. However, if it was drawn from the vial after mixing, a few months exposure to oxygen, even with EDTA present, some dehydration would occur, resulting in the mostly dry, reddish blob on the lid. This is why I believe there was an unauthorized draw from that vial."

I couldn't grab a perfectly clear picture, but I don't see any sign of blood on the lid. If there is some there, it definitely looks black.

http://i.imgur.com/UQLJ5bz.jpg?1

Thanks again for the picture. You can CLEARLY see the word "Vacutainer" (twice in fact) on the purple lid. Do a quick search, and you can clearly see those tubes are filed by puncturing the lid itself and the blood is "sucked" (vacuumed....hence the name) out. The hole is supposed to be there. Now about the tape being cut.....I don't know.

Also, if you were to take blood from that vile to be planted....you wouldn't puncture the lid, you're simply remove it entirely.

 

[Billy Bats]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

Last question/interview:

http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-addresses-5-big-questions-we-all-have/

 

[parrot]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

I don't know about that interview, but from what I have read there is 'blood DNA' and 'non-blood DNA', and describing the latch DNA as having come from sweat was just Kratz speculating. Others have speculated that it could have been taken from a toothbrush or any number of sources of non-blood DNA.

 

[The Gator]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

Who's "he"?

 

[Billy Bats]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

I don't know about that interview, but from what I have read there is 'blood DNA' and 'non-blood DNA', and describing the latch DNA as having come from sweat was just Kratz speculating. Others have speculated that it could have been taken from a toothbrush or any number of sources of non-blood DNA.

One would think the prosecuting attorney would have the facts.

 

[Billy Bats]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

Who's "he"?

Kratz, the prosecutor.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

I don't know about that interview, but from what I have read there is 'blood DNA' and 'non-blood DNA', and describing the latch DNA as having come from sweat was just Kratz speculating. Others have speculated that it could have been taken from a toothbrush or any number of sources of non-blood DNA.

One would think the prosecuting attorney would have the facts.

And yet, there he was, spinning a fairy tale for all of Northeast Wisconsin to hear with his "hide the kids" press conference.

 

[The Gator]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

Who's "he"?

Kratz, the prosecutor.

Oh

Then I believe him

 

[SIDA!]

This week Megyn Kelly interviewed Kratz and Strang.

Kratz said it was sweat DNA.

Strang said it was never proven to be sweat DNA.

There was no resolution and I don't know if there is any info from the original case documents that can clear it up.

But let us assume it was actually sweat dna. How did it get there if Avery was wearing gloves, because no fingerprints were found. If he was wearing gloves how did sweat get on the latch?

And if he was or wasn't wearing gloves why didn't any of his blood dna come up on the latch or battery case area?

I suppose sweat could drip from the forehead, but then they couldn't find any other sweat dna inside the van?

 

[Billy Bats]

I think Maurlie posted a link to an article saying there was no sweat DNA on the latch, it was blood DNA. I'll try and find it

That is wrong. In the recent interview posted in here yesterday, he repeatedly said it was sweat DNA, not blood.

I don't know about that interview, but from what I have read there is 'blood DNA' and 'non-blood DNA', and describing the latch DNA as having come from sweat was just Kratz speculating. Others have speculated that it could have been taken from a toothbrush or any number of sources of non-blood DNA.

One would think the prosecuting attorney would have the facts.

And yet, there he was, spinning a fairy tale for all of Northeast Wisconsin to hear with his "hide the kids" press conference.

Crazy, right?! I really enjoy how the slit throat turned into a scratch on her neck. Good stuff.

 

[Sabertooth]

Pretty tough to open a latch with gloves on. Plus, I'd assume he has sausage fingers like most mechanics. So I could see him pulling the glove off to open the latch. The fact that Kratz said it makes me doubt it moreso than the plausibility.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Sweat DNA on the outside of someone's car doesn't seem that big of a deal.