Although defence argued that the blood DNA inside RAV4 was from the vile in Lenk's possession - not only they failed to disprove EDTA test
They did not fail to disprove EDTA. There was not test for EDTA until the FBI came up with one. The independent specialist said that there is no credibility on this test because there is no 'threshold' of EDTA to look for. In other words, if you look for high concentration of EDTA you will not find it and conclude that it wasn't there. If you look for very low one you will, and conclude the other way. Because the test is not standardised, and no details were provided on what exactly they looked for, it should not be taken as evidence one way or the other.
but weirdly, if I read correctly, what we don't see on TV is that they also fail to prove that the hole in the vial was not part of a standard blood evidence procedure as piercing the tops of blood tubes was considered to be standard practice while filling them.
watch that part of the episode again. The defence contacted the laboratory that had done the blood test for the rape case and they confirmed they had not taken blood with a needle because they never do that - it is not customary practice.
More importantly - Avery's DNA from sweat was also found on and under RAV4's hood and around hood latch (not shown in documentary at all). The evidence conclusively shown that Steven Avery's hand was under the hood while the accused insisted he never touched the victims car.
Well there is a very good reason why the prosecution did not present that evidence. Sweat dna expires too quickly and could not have been traced given the time between the car being found and swabbed. By presenting that evidence the prosecution would essentially be saying 'we planted it'. The fact they chose not to present it as evidence says a lot.
Bullet in the garage, although defence tried to prove it was planted afterwards, due to lack of any blood stains or splatter, was undeniably from Avery's rifle.
incorrect. Because the bullet was only half (how convenient) they could only prove it was from a weapon the same calibre as Avery's. Coincidentally Bobby Dassey's father tried to sell a rifle of same calibre while the victim was still missing. That is the same person who is the only alibi for Bobby Dassey, and Bobby is the only alibi for his father. That's the Bobby Dassey that left to go hunting shortly after the victim left the Avery property. His father's testimony was disproved in terms of the timings (they differed between his original statement and the court testimony) which essentially means no one saw his son, Bobby, after he supposedly left to go hunting. no one can confirm the time he was out and about.
Defence could succeed in disproving that the victim was killed inside of the garage, but couldn't prove that she was not shot or wounded with his gun, obviously the weapon would have his fingerprints, count of illegally possessing a firearm confirmed in the process.
They couldn't prove or disprove based on my answer above. What they could prove is that the bullet was not from the victim. When a bullet hits a human there are traces of blood and dna embedded/burned on the metal (not sure of the technical terms). There was nothing like that found on that bullet.
The victim had a history of minor harassment from Avery and on that day he used fake name to schedule the appointment and phone records shown that he called her repeatedly using *67 to hide his number.
No she did not. The only person to claim that was her previous boss and that was not corroborated by her ex-boyfriend, her brother or other colleagues.
I have not seen any mention that he used a fake name to schedule the appointment.
He did not repeatedly call her from a blocked number. He called her only once. He called everyone from a blocked number as he was a public figure and wanted to avoid being harassed back. There was a second call from his blocked number to the victim but that never reached her handset (it didn't ring). It was considered to be a repeat dial by mistake.
Along with the RAV4 key wiped from victims DNA (but contaminated with his sweat), police also found handcuffs and leg irons (not shown in documentary) and few other things that were wiped and free of anyone's DNA. You would think lack of DNA is good, but apparently...
They were not wiped free of DNA. They were simply never used. The prosecution did not find that they were used for anything and that's why they didn't even present them. He says he had bought these to use with Jodi who was being released from jail in a few days.
Victim's phone, camera and PDA were found in Avery's barrel close to home, bones found elsewhere had burned tyre markings on them, the only place they found similar accelerant material was the fire pit next to his house and they also found 5 gallon buckets which were used to distribute the remains around other parts of property, or something to that effect.
The question is why would burned remains be found at the quarry, miles away from his house? If he burned the victim at his back yard how did bone fragments end up in another fire pit at the quarry?
Btw, there is also a hunter's cabin near the burn site at the quarry. That was the only place police dogs picked up the victim's scent. The cabin was never searched and the owner was allowed to go in/out as they pleased for days after. There are only a couple members of the Avery extended family that were hunters -just saying..
Prosecutors also included statements from prisoners who served time with Avery during his "rape" sentence confirming that Avery talked about and showed them diagrams of a torture chamber he planned to build when he was released. This paired with multiple testimonies of neighbours and I think also family statements, police records of animal cruelty, odd behaviour, previous misdemeanors, etc painted character profile of someone highly volatile and unstable.
Prisoner statements are useless, they'll say whatever.
We are talking about a redneck family. no one liked them and for good reasons. That doesn't make him a murderer.
