Blood Everywhere. Except on the Gun.

Sikta Patmaik has a PhD in biochemistry. She's spent six years at the Texas DPS Crime Lab in Houston. She's testified as an expert witness 13 times. And today, she walked into a Galveston County courtroom to tell jurors what forensic testing revealed about the evidence collected from Tammy King's home.

The results? Blood was everywhere.

Flooring from the victim's living room. Positive for blood. A blue sheet from the victim. Positive. A tan sheet. Positive. A white blanket. Positive. A light blue sheet. Positive. Something called a "Yogibo" from the victim. Positive. Three pillows from Tara King's bedroom. All positive for blood.

But the .22 caliber Smith & Wesson SW22 Victory semi-automatic pistol recovered from Uriah Urick?

Let that sink in for a moment. Prosecutors allege that Uriah Urick, 18, and his girlfriend Tara King, 17, shot Tammy King in the head inside her own home in Bacliff, Texas. They allege the couple stole money and guns, then fled to the Mexican border before being caught in Laredo. The state recovered what they believe is the murder weapon from Urick.

And that weapon came back clean.

Now, I'm not drawing conclusions here. There are explanations that don't involve cleanup. Maybe the shooting happened in a way that didn't transfer blood to the firearm. Maybe the weapon was stored somewhere that prevented contamination. Maybe the forensic reality of gunshot wounds is more complicated than TV makes it look.

But here's what I know: when blood is found on sheets, blankets, pillows, and flooring throughout a house, and the alleged murder weapon comes back negative, that raises questions. Questions the defense will absolutely ask. Questions the jury will have to answer.

What the Defense Didn't Do

Here's the other thing that caught my attention: the defense passed on cross-examination. Entirely. No questions for Dr. Patmaik.

That's a strategic choice. They're not challenging the testing methodology. They're not questioning her credentials. They're not disputing that blood was found where she says it was found. They're accepting the science.

Which means their challenge is coming later. When the DNA interpretation analyst takes the stand and reveals whose blood was found on each item, that's when the defense will make their move. Because "blood was present" and "this blood belongs to the victim" and "this blood was deposited during the commission of this crime" are three very different things.

The prosecution still has work to do. They need to show not just that blood was present, but that its presence tells the story they're telling. That it connects these two teenagers to the death of a 61-year-old woman in a way that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Question Nobody Asked

Patmaik explained that DPS policy limits initial testing to 10 items. The investigating agency has to request additional testing. Some items in this case were never tested because law enforcement prioritized others.

That's standard procedure. Labs have limited resources. You test what matters most first.

But it means there are items from this crime scene that have never been examined. Evidence that exists but hasn't been analyzed. And in a capital murder case where two teenagers face life in prison, every piece of untested evidence is a question mark hanging over the verdict.

▶️ WATCH THE FULL TESTIMONY Blood On The Sheets But NOT On The Murder Weapon

This is Day 4 of the Urick trial. The forensic picture is coming into focus. Blood throughout the house. A clean gun. Reference samples from the victim, both defendants, and Travis Hodge, the man who allegedly drove them to Laredo.

The DNA interpretation is next. That's when we'll learn whose blood was where. And that's when this case will really start to take shape.

Stay tuned.