They grow up so fast 😢 <| sep |> I think this every time this thing gets posted . And I don ' t even know why . I mean , it ' s objectively funny . But somehow this family just annoys the shit out of me . I actively hate them . <| sep |> Regarding the possible use of the EDTA sample here goes my humble opinions . It is important to be aware that there are other foreign inorganic substances in blood tubes in addition to EDTA . Therefore another possible area of investigation is to test for the presence of plasticizers contained in the bloodstain that was analysed for the presence of EDTA . Whether a blood collection tube is made of plastic or glass the one constant with these blood tubes is that they all have rubber stoppers . These stoppers will contain various plastic components such as butylenes , polyethylene and polypropylene based products . It is well known that such plasticizers ' leach ' into the blood in blood vials and blood bags over time . Such plasticizers or variants of them are contained in blood bags that are used by Red Cross Blood Banks . Regrettably sometimes blood from such bags are used by athletes to blood dope . These plasticizers are however easily detected in the urine andor blood of these athletes . These plasticizers can reach concentrations of mgL but can be detected down to parts per billion ppb . Given that Steven Avery ' s blood vial was sitting around for ? at least two years there was plenty of time for these plasticizers to leach into the blood from the rubber stopper . Importantly the plasticizers used in the production of blood tubes are different to those used in making car interior materials such as dashboard panels from what I understand Polycarbonates etc so the two should be able to be separated and detected quite easily . Perhaps an approach could be made to the manufacturers of the blood tubes to see what plasticizers they used when making the rubber stoppers so then you would know what to look test for . Importantly I haven ' t read anywhere that these plasticizers are degraded by sunlight so in theory they should still be present in the blood stain if it originated from the stored blood vial . Of course this is moot unless there is unfettered access to what remains of the original test sample that was analysed in this case . With regards to the presence or not of EDTA in the blood stain I understand that a test to detect the presence of EDTA was employed to test the suspicion that blood may have been planted from a previous sample collected that had been stored for some time . From what I have gleaned this was a test developed by the FBI lab in Quantico Maryland but stand corrected . On the surface the paper describing the EDTA test does appear to address some of the basic tenets of good laboratory practice which include publication in a peer reviewed journal use of blood tainted with the correct additive ie . K 3 EDTA from the pictures available it looks like SA blood was collected into a glass tube which contains K 3 EDTA . In the newer tubes these days blood is collected into plastic tubes containing K 2 EDTA the use of varying concentrations of EDTA to create working standards in order to ' prime ' their instrument and the documentation of the limit of detection 5 ppm parts per million . However there were some limitations in the paper which could also cast doubt as to the interpretative capability of the test The FBI test was developed using fresh samples in a controlled environment and on easily accessible and processed material stained sterile cotton patches There were no comparisons in testing the effects of time and environmental exposure eg . Svenson et al . 1989 calculated a halflife of EDTA of 11 minutes for the photolysis of ironIII EDTA dissolved in water and irradiated with sunshine and any chemical interaction with plastics on EDTA levels The paper states the limit of detection was 5 ppm based on this it is doubtful the amount of EDTA that would have been in the blood stain could have been detected anyway certain observers have claimed that levels as low as picogram concentrations would have been present therefore undetectable using this particular method If this was the test employed then it appears that it was specifically ' rebirthed ' for this case but has never been validated ' inthefield ' that is on realworld samples in other words there could be questions about the tests fitness for purpose Basically the test may work fine for inhouse controlled samples but that does not mean it can then be extrapolated to work same on all other samples . Hope this helps the conversation a little .