DoubleLoop

The number of prints on the RAV4 fall very much into the range that we typically see. Fingerprints on interior surfaces of vehicles are quite uncommon (with a couple of exceptions like the windows and mirrors).

The doc tries to insist that there was "too much" DNA on the hood latch. From the published research that we reviewed and discussed in the show. The amount of DNA falls well within the expected range.

As for planting, we just can't understand how backwoods cops could collect and preserve DNA evidence and confidently plant it without getting their own DNA in the sample and confidently knowning that the sample never contained someone else's DNA. And why they wouldn't also plant Dassey's DNA. And why not just plant somethiing less risky.

Good question. Glenn is trained in bloodstain pattern analysis and recognizes James's expertise. He was also confused by that comment. We can only theorize that the question asked of him was phrased as "Wouldn't you expect blood to be on the handle if it was touched by someone who was actively bleeding?" The show is edited and may have left that part out.

Right now we trust his expertise and then are wondering why he would say something that's so obviously incorrect.

On TV shows the main thing they get wrong about latent print analysis is that it's all done by computers. While AFIS is a critical tool to search through millions of records, the final decision is made by a human examiner.

In forensics in general, it seems that people seem to over value certain pieces of forensic evidence and also to over value the lack of physical evidence as meaning something

For years now, I've had to go and testify at trial when I didn't find any fingerprints at all. Prosecutors have learned that if there isn't any physical evidnece, the jury still wants to hear that the scientist tried. They're not comfortable just taking the officer's word for it.

After recently engaging with the online communities that are actively discussing MaM and The Staircase, I think the biggest problem is that people are WAY overvaluing certain evidence that is only weak, and then WAY WAY overvaluing other evidence that is just inconclusive. The lack of fingerprints inside the RAV4 is often pointed to as evidence that the car was wiped down. And then with blood also there, it's evidence that it was all planted. This just isn't the case. A lack of fingerprints on an object that was touched is common, especially the interior of a car.