I have been doing some more research on DNA. What I have found out there is no such thing as Sweat DNA, Sweat in itself does not have DNA. Also it hard to tell what part of the body DNA came from unless you visually see fluids. Blood, saliva, etc. Now for one to definitely say it is sweat DNA, they would need to see a sweat stain, but it not the sweat that has the DNA it is the skin cells that shed with the sweat that has DNA. So to say that someone left sweat DNA on a car latch with sweaty hands would be an assumption. It could just be regular skin cells that shed from the hand.
Also I have found out that DNA can be found on objects months after they were touched by the person, and since there is no scientific test yet to age DNA left behind, it is hard to determine exactly when that DNA sample was left behind. So for example, if Steven Avery open Teresa Halbach hood at an earlier visit in that year, it is possible that the DNA was left then. (not determining myself either way).
During my research I found this interesting
"As LCN can be recovered from an area where no discrete stain (e.g. blood, semen, saliva) is visible, it can be hard to establish how an individual's DNA came to be there. An occurrence known as secondary transfer can mean that a person's DNA could be present at a scene when the person themselves was not.
Such small levels of DNA, as analysed in LCN, could be passed from one person to another during a handshake and the second party could then deposit the transferred DNA at the scene. This is affected by the propensity at which a person deposits DNA. It has been argued that some people naturally deposit more DNA in their immediate environment than others. If the person shaking another's hand is a heavy shedder and the person who transfers their DNA to the scene is a poor shedder, the innocent party's DNA is more likely to be transferred.
The idea of legitimate contact is also relevant with LCN evidence as, if it is not known how DNA was transferred to a scene, it is also harder to date. Thus a common defence is that the DNA was deposited at another time through legitimate means.
A discrete stain, such as a blood stain, carries much more evidential value as it is relatively uncommon to leave blood at a site unless an incident has occurred. Low template DNA can come from touching an item or even speaking in an area, which is much harder to connect to any incriminating behaviour. It can imply an individual may have been present at the scene but not what the individual may have done there."
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/emfpu/genetics/explained/low-problems
So from my conclusion, DNA can not be the only reliable fact in any case.
Extremely good point. What if teresa had car trouble, and he opened hood of her car at an earlier date ? We know she had been there several times, so not unreasonable to think the hood supposedly sweat dna could be there from before. Also, that type of DNA would be alot easier for someone to acquire and wouldn't have to come from a blood vial.
On the topic of the potential planting of blood evidence of the Rav 4. If we assume that was the case, here are two proposed ways that avery's blood was planted :
1. Lenk shows up with the blood on the day the car was found and via no evidence of him signing in, only out he takes that opportunity to plant the blood.
2. They planted the vehicle there, so the blood was already planted in the car. This is a more elaborate framing for sure.
#1 is impossible unless Lenk already had the key. So that forces us to assume that the vehicle was planted, and therefore why would he even need to attempt #1 ? Wouldn't #2 be a better plan? We have testimony that the car was locked, and I think suggesting that the women that found the car were lying about that, means they were involved or that a key might have been found by the car ? Also seems kind of unlikely for a killer to just lock the car and leave it where it can easily be found. -- but with a cadaver dog ? maybe so.
#2 This entails police being the ones who found the car elsewhere and then bringing the car to the property with blood evidence already intact. This fits with the theory of the cars plates being run a few days earlier and possibly near the junkyard. They then assume it's Avery and feel the need to plant the car on the property to connect it to him directly. One reason this might be needed, is so they can get the search warrants and be able to have a reason for getting Avery's DNA.
So here's my question. We know they have the blood, they had the key, and the car was found somewhere else then now a whole lot more of the police dept personnel needs to be involved. Someone found the car and likely called it in ? Do they really just contact Lenk or Colburn and say "here's our chance to get avery, I'm not gonna call this in" ? Now they need to plan how to get the car on the property and keep the car hidden a bit longer. That seems rather elaborate.
If #1 was the case, then you gotta risk being seen planting that blood. I find it hard to believe everyone was aware of the framing.
How do you all think this might have been done ? I think that if the planting is real, that it's the vehicle itself, not just blood. I admit that putting things on the vehicle halfheartedly seems suspicious. To me, it makes the car look even more suspicious. Chuck, Earl, Steve or anyone at the junkyard should have noticed that as being peculiar. no ?
I want to hear more about chuck saying he saw someone there one night. Want to know what night he saw that person driving in. If it was the night of the 3rd/4th, that fits #2 as the car was found on November 5th.
All just theorizing here and I know it's not anything not proposed yet, but even the documentary didn't show an elaborate narrative but more suggested both these possibilities. Maybe the avery trial did have more elaborate narratives.
Will go back and see exactly what chuck says and if the avery appeal has any details on this. I know the Avery interview in the documentary mentions "Tammy" told him about the planting. Who is tammy ? is that a wife of chuck or earl ? How would she know ? chuck was in consistent contact with police during investigation according to avery appeal. Anyone know who tammy is ?
