A writer with an industrial chemistry background as a few things to say about the reality of confusion surrounding the “Making of a Murder” documentary. She focuses on the blood evidence from the second murder and makes some good points. She clearly differentiates between “forensic” science and what she is used to. Here’s a quote:

“But the key here is that we’re talking about forensic science, not beverage chemistry. Beverage chemistry, in this case, is much more exacting. Was there really no EDTA in the blood swabbed from victim Teresa Halbach’s vehicle, or was the chemical simply too diluted or degraded to be detected with the FBI’s method? Could the test have missed a small amount of EDTA? It would be hard to say without further experiments that replicate crime scene conditions, experiments that essentially put the test to the test.”

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/26/are-these-crime-drama-clues-fact-or-fiction/

Plus more from the perspective that the Avery cases reveals how prosecutorial misconduct is no myth in the US and is the salient point to the documentary’s message.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2016/01/26/thin-blue-line-director-praises-making-murderer/q5iMKnlwS0D7snfNZM7L4K/story.html