MaxManning
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,438
- Reaction score
- 8
This info, not included the Making a Murderer, may prove somewhat key.
Managed to acquire court transcript of Brendan Dassey's trial, Day 1 (shared in another group). Reading Kratz's opening remarks to the jury.
Kratz states Steve Avery DNA evidence found on the hood latch of the RAV4 was a swab for sweat/skin cells (i.e., it wasn't blood evidence, like the interior RAV4 samples). And just as interestingly, the sample wasn't recovered back in November 2005, but rather in April 2006, from a swabbing that was allegedly prompted by investigators' conversation with Brendan, in which he supposedly stated that Steve Avery had opened up the RAV 4 hood.
Kratz: "Was Teresa's car hood opened up by Uncle Steve as Brendan says? Well, on Aprll 3, again, as a result of Brendan's statements, law enforcement swabs -- they take a Q-tip and -- and they swab the hood latch, reaching up underneath the hood, just to see if we can get a a DNA profile. Sherry Culhane does. She gets a full profile that's Steven Avery's sweat. Steven Avery's sweat is found on the hood latch, just like should happen if Brendan is to believed that Uncle Steve went under the hood."
Putting aside for a moment the possibility that Brendan may not have volunteered the hood detail in conversation, but that it was fed to him by investigators (I'd have to do further research before confirming who brought it up)...
If what Kratz is relating will indeed be successfully shown in trial, then the "cops framed Avery" argument possibly takes a bit of hit, no? For, it would now seem to require either cops to have had the foresight to put some Avery sweat on the hood latch, or else to do it around or after the Brendan interview, to match their discussion -- or else Sherry Culhane (the same person who yielded the exonerating results for Avery's 1985 case) to have faked results, or else contaminated them in the lab. I don't know. But it seems to me the "framed" angle may have narrowed a bit...? What do you think?
Thanks for posting this, I am going to listen to brendan's interview to get an idea of when things got mentioned to him BEFORE he said them.
Also, just wanted to float a potential theory as to why Avery might have went under hood, but am open to other suggestions as this is just throwing something out there, nothing I feel strongly about. Is it possible that Avery opened the hood to disconnect the battery ? Reason might be that you wouldn't want the car alarm to go off in the case that something bumped the car ? Or in case the vehicle had some kind of onStar gps tracking mechanism ? I don't know enough about that kind of thing to know if either makes sense just theorizing that something that required the battery would be the motivation for disconnecting it.
Or might that be some kind of normal protocol in the junkyard for some reason ? Anyone know ?
Another thought about this, is that it is also a reason why someone might take their gloves off. I myself have done this in the winter when opening the hood of a car/truck, to find that often hard to find lever that pops it up.