doppelloop

Typical. In fact, it's preferred. The minute the cops enter the vehicle they are conducting a search. You want that done under controlled conditions, under a search warrant, back in the lab. Search warrants on vehicles are required. And even if the family consents, you still get a warrant in case you begin to find incriminating evidence towards a family member. Last thing you want is to start finding evidence and then have them revoke consent. We ALWAYS get a search warrant for vehicles in situations like this.

​

​

We routinely find limited latent prints in vehicles because the surfaces are often not that conducive to latent prints. Windows and mirrors are the best surfaces. Plus the vehicle was outside for a number of days (I think in the rain too) so exterior prints are reduced likelihood to recover (not impossible, but just it's one more factor against finding viable prints).

​

On that note too: there is a difference between finding latent prints on a surface and finding IDENTIFIABLE latent prints on a surface. Quite often we find smudges, smears, fragments, and other bits of prints, but they are not all identifiable. Identifiable latent prints are very small subset of all latent prints left behind. There may well have been plenty of latent print in and outside the vehicle, but not identifiable.

Yeah that has been one of my sticking points. If they went this far to plant all this evidence, why not plant Brendan Dassey's too. I'm sure they could have found his chapstick too. (eyeroll).

I have been to a number of shooting scenes where blood was minimal. Especially if low caliber projectile, no exit wound and especially if a lot of clothes or hair to absorb the spatter that might occur. I have seen shooting deaths where there was next to no blood under those conditions.

​

I don't believe her throat was slit in the bedroom. A throat slash creates significant blood loss and arterial spray/spurt. The bedroom would have been a bloody mess and there would have been likely tiny microscopic bloodstains that could be detectable by chemicals (including luminol). The bedroom, unless it was covered in plastic and all that removed, seems implausible to me.

Yes, in our podcast we clearly have the view (as did Palenik in MAM2), that the wax could have come from a comparison of the bullet in the lab.

Firearms examiners use wax to mount bullets when comparing them under the microscope. They would not use metal grips or vice grips because this is a tool and tools could leave new marks on the bullet (especially if softer metal like lead). It's the Firearms examiner version of wearing gloves. You don't use a tool to hold a bullet since it could damage, add, or alter existing marks on the bullet already.

This is Forensics 101. Suggesting the wax came from chapstick and that's how the DNA got there is pretty ludicrous.

​