Well bleach will destroy DNA, but it will not destroy the iron found in blood. Luminal will detect the iron in blood found at a crime scene despite any bleaching. Ill have to look, but Im fairly certain there is a scene in the doc that shows the garage being applied with Luminal and examined under a black light.
canadianwhitedove posted some great information on this thread about bleach explaining that there are two types of bleach. The kind we have to assume was on brendan's pants, was not the kind that destroys all evidence as it dyed his pants. Search for that post for more information.
The documentary transcripts have no mention of luminol. I also thought that it was checked like you did. Maybe there is an image, but no mention ? The topic is discussed in episode 6 and really doesn't even discuss much about the topic at all, but here is the pertinent info from the trial :
Law enforcement actually took a jack hammer and tore up concrete chunks, right?
That was my understanding.
Buting: And they did that because they thought, "Well, if the victim had been killed here, perhaps her blood would've soaked into those cracks," right?
I assume so.
Did you find Teresa Halbach's DNA on any of those swabs?
No, I did not.
If somebody had cleaned that garage floor with bleach before the police came, you would not expect to find any DNA, would you?
Culhane: No, I wouldn't.
Buting: But in this case, you did find DNA. You found Mr. Avery's own DNA.
That's correct.
Baetz: She was shot a number of times.
There would be massive pools of blood. It wasn't there.
Steven, I don't believe, is capable of sanitizing that house.
Very few evidence technicians would be capable of fully sanitizing an area like that.
But as I brought up, first I'm not even sure that she was killed in the garage or even shot in the garage. I like most, am open to the idea that evidence could have been planted.
But I have also said that I don't think the police being corrupt means anyone is innocent.
Defense will always frame things to convince you a given way as will prosecution.
I made the point that just because avery blood was found and not halbach, doesn't neccessariliy mean anything except that his blood wasn't cleaned up. If there was a pool of blood in one spot, that is what he would have cleaned, not the whole garage. right ?
Also, in terms of splatter, I am not even convinced she was shot in the garage. And if she was, putting a pillow or clothes over the head when shooting it, would result in zero blood splatter. But again, defense and prosecution frame things to fit a narrative. My suggestions fits neither, but yet... is plausible.
I also suggest that if the avery was wearing cloth gloves, the blood likely gets absorbed into the glove and would likely drip far less than with no glove. Yet.. if he touched something, like a part of the suv, the blood would transfer to the surface. It also explains why you would find no prints in the suv. -- so the idea that he left blood and yet there were no prints becomes rather plausible.
But that doesn't fit the narrative of the defense. I get it.
So, as i said, I'm not accepting what either side is saying, because they both have a job to do that isn't even likely possible without a real investigation.
