I'm not sure what you're getting at. There was no blood under the hood, so obviously there was a difference source for that DNA. The key to the car was found i

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There was no blood under the hood, so obviously there was a difference source for that DNA. The key to the car was found in Avery's room in clear sight (after it had been searched 7 times already). The key was scrubbed clean, and only Avery's DNA was present, but not blood. No fingerprints. At any point a piece of his clothing could have been used (or a toothbrush) to rub some DNA on it. Same for the car hood. Trivial to plant when you have access to somebody's DNA. At any point during the search somebody could have picked up one of his socks, walked to the car, rubbed it wherever and walked away. I'm not saying it definitely happened this way, just that it would have been easy to do for anybody with access. While the article goes to lengths to claim that the documentary leaves out important evidence, but arguments they use to support that claim don't hold water. Their primary argument about the hood latch DNA contains a factual error and the assertion about planting the evidence being 'nearly impossible' is absurd. And that is apparently the best argument they have about the documentary being biased...