As I said before, they tested the sock and were able to quickly determine whose blood and DNA were on it in time for his arrest warrant (that was a three day period after finding the body, right?). Now, there are tests that could be done very quickly to determine if a stain is blood or rust, and if it's human or animal.Let's be clear: The notation about blood-like stains in the car appears in a September 15th/16th search warrant, that is a legal document identifying evidence that is being taken into custody for testing. (These search warrants, which were held to protect the defendant, were released only sometime thereafter.) Your apparent astonishment that the search warrant and/or the arrest warrant (issued on September 17th) didn't include the results of tests on evidence it had just procured is, to say the least, puzzling.
Do people who kill people at their workplace always make sense?
Anyway, your Sep 17th date is referring to the first warrant that was released, that didn't mention blood in the vehicle or at the apartment. I'm talking about the Oct 1st documents that mention those stains. There were two weeks for them to not only determine whether the blood was human or not, but also if it was Annie Le's. But they just leave it open for interpretation by mentioning the stains, but not saying why those are relevant to the case. I'll tell you why they leave it vague - so they can secure those items and the apartment for closer scrutiny. But to say that those stains show he killed her is misleading and should not be interpreted as more evidence of guilt.