That's a good point. The carpet scrap (were there no swabs sent to lab?) is so interesting because of the location it was taken from within the trunk. My first inclination to that location was probably due to it being a spot less contaminated by everyday use, but I'm not sure if they had other reasons. Either way, you're right, I haven't seen any public data on the results of that sample.Thoughtful post, as always. Thank you.
Regarding the SW and its return. Out of all those items they took from his house and vehicle, it appears that the cartridge, gun and carpet scrap from the car where the only things they sent to the lab. We got results on the gun/cartridge, nothing on the carpet scrap. Since they did publish the finding on the gun/cartridge, I assume they would have published that result, too.
I researched testing on clothing and didn't come up with much of anything. I couldn't find out if they could test without the item being sent to the lab or even how long blood stains remain testable. Do you have any idea of how they could test clothing without sending the sample into the lab?
I'm left with thinking the SW return supports the affidavits stating they found no evidence tying RA to the crime scene.
Other than the unaccounted for carpet sample results, there's really nothing in that return that sends up any red flags about items of evidence besides the gun/ammo. Could there be other sealed documents that contain something about other items taken/ tested from the home/vehicle? Why weren't more items, like clothing, sent to lab?
Last edited: