Blood spatter? Fact or myth?

[ShiningInLuz]

when I post here i'm not too bothered about predictive text...spelling...punctuation and often post from a phone...because it doesn't matter.
professionally I am meticulous...amaral was sloppy...I know which one i would prefer

again you seem to want to make excuses for his sloppiness.

his book is still being sold containing content he knows not to be true...that is unprofessional and indefensible...yet you and others support him...strange

Unless someone on this forum has met you when you were working, we would not have a clue as to whether you are meticulous in that sphere or not.  Claiming you are meticulous does not make it so.  Nor is it relevant.  You are simply trotting out the idea of 'sloppy Amaral' without looking at what actually went on.  The equivalent would be 'sloppy Rebelo', 'sloppy Redwood', and 'sloppy Wall'.

It's cheap.  It's easy.  It's sloppy.

Amaral headed up a large, unprecedented investigation, and did not solve the case.  Rebelo, Redwood and Wall have done the same.  And that is called reality.

[Alice Purjorick]

then the school of thought is wrong and I'm living proof

I would expect nothing less than that unsubstantiated assertion.
Tell Meredith Belbin he has it wrong . I am sure he will be eternally grateful.

[Mr Gray]

Unless someone on this forum has met you when you were working, we would not have a clue as to whether you are meticulous in that sphere or not.  Claiming you are meticulous does not make it so.  Nor is it relevant.  You are simply trotting out the idea of 'sloppy Amaral' without looking at what actually went on.  The equivalent would be 'sloppy Rebelo', 'sloppy Redwood', and 'sloppy Wall'.

It's cheap.  It's easy.  It's sloppy.

Amaral headed up a large, unprecedented investigation, and did not solve the case.  Rebelo, Redwood and Wall have done the same.  And that is called reality.

i don't give a toss whether you believe i am meticulous in my profession or not. What matters is what my meticulous approach gives me....one taht I don't have to move country because my children are being bullied at school....i can afford to send them to a school that has zero tolerance to bullying.

[Alfie]

Unless someone on this forum has met you when you were working, we would not have a clue as to whether you are meticulous in that sphere or not.  Claiming you are meticulous does not make it so.  Nor is it relevant.  You are simply trotting out the idea of 'sloppy Amaral' without looking at what actually went on.  The equivalent would be 'sloppy Rebelo', 'sloppy Redwood', and 'sloppy Wall'.

It's cheap.  It's easy.  It's sloppy.

Amaral headed up a large, unprecedented investigation, and did not solve the case.  Rebelo, Redwood and Wall have done the same.  And that is called reality.

When you yourself have been extremely snooty about the Met's investigation in PdL led by Andy Redwood, perhaps you could explain why one is not allowed to criticise Amaral's investigation at all as far as you're concerned?

[ShiningInLuz]

i don't give a toss whether you believe i am meticulous in my profession or not. What matters is what my meticulous approach gives me....one taht I don't have to move country because my children are being bullied at school....i can afford to send them to a school that has zero tolerance to bullying...again perhaps you should cease your personal attacks

The issue is that you are applying the same approach here as you are to the alleged blood spatter.

You are asserting a position.  You are claiming superiority.  Both happen to be wrong.

With Amaral, you are asserting that he should have understood the so-called blood, without looking at what information was put to him, and when.  Then you apply the label 'sloppy'.

Your approach in this matter is without merit.

[Mr Gray]

The issue is that you are applying the same approach here as you are to the alleged blood spatter.

You are asserting a position.  You are claiming superiority.  Both happen to be wrong. 

With Amaral, you are asserting that he should have understood the so-called blood, without looking at what information was put to him, and when.  Then you apply the label 'sloppy'.

Your approach in this matter is without merit.

your attempts to defend amaral are totally without merit...I have posted several quotes from the book that are false statements...yet he has not removed them and continues to pedal untruths

[ShiningInLuz]

most of your posts towards me today as everyone has seen are without merit and thinly disguised personal attacks
you should concentrate on the title of the thread...no blood...no splatter and no connection to maddie

Then you should find it easy to prove what the spots are or what they are not.

You should be able to prove they are not blood.

And you should be able to prove they are not connected to Madeleine.

You can't.  Merely further unsupported assertions.  Hardly a meticulous approach.  Quite the opposite.

[Mr Gray]

Then you should find it easy to prove what the spots are or what they are not.

You should be able to prove they are not blood.

And you should be able to prove they are not connected to Madeleine.

You can't.  Merely further unsupported assertions.  Hardly a meticulous approach.  Quite the opposite.

the forensic reports did not connect them to maddie
they did  fluoresce under UV light
the blood dog nor Eddie alerted to them

the pattern did not represent a splatter
you have not specified which level of proof you require

[Jean-Pierre]

Then you should find it easy to prove what the spots are or what they are not.

You should be able to prove they are not blood.

And you should be able to prove they are not connected to Madeleine.

You can't.  Merely further unsupported assertions.  Hardly a meticulous approach.  Quite the opposite.

SIL - reply 2 on this thread provides a synopsis of the FSS analysis of these marks, and realistically that is all any of us are going to have to work with.

Together with the random nature of the spots.

Perhaps it would help to put in another way - had these marks been "blood spatter" from an accident involving Madeleine, then I have no doubt that

Keela would have alerted at that point.
 
the FSS would have been able to identify the marks as blood and matched to Madeleine.

In the absence of such corroboration, I think it is logical to rule these marks out as "blood spatter". 

[Brietta]

If members are fed up talking about blood splatter would they mind very much taking what they do wish to discuss to an appropriate thread, this one is for blood splatter only, thank you

[Robittybob1]

In his book Amaral claims as a fact that Eddie alerted to that wall  - which is still claimed by some to have been 'blood spattered. 

Quote (ch 16)
 The investigators have hardly recovered from their amazement, when another, equally impressive, howl startles them. This time, Eddie has picked out that same odour under the window, just behind the sofa, on one of the walls in the lounge. That evening, in apartment 5A, the investigators begin to glimpse what might have happened.
End quote

Their conclusions that evening (before forensic testing) on ''what might have happened''  is a classic example of putting two and two together (before all the facts are known)  and making five.       And then sticking to their 'conclusions' inspite of the results of forensic testing which did not support them in any way.

AIMHO

Interesting appraisal Benice.