Blood spatter? Fact or myth?

[Brietta]

Nice one. Be interesting to see a high rez image. I realised after reading the link that Mercury posted that those are actually markers pointing to spots on the wall.

I think the image below represents trainee CSIs investigating blood spatter ...

Although the blood is still visible here ... the same technique for using markers as in 5A is in evidence.  They are also taking and photographing measurements between the points of interest.
Probably to determine type of spray ... whether blunt force trauma or arterial?

Having viewed more actual crime scenes than is healthy to find that illustration, I think it would be safe to say the "blood spatter in 5A" is just another myth based on misinterpretation of the photograph showing the markers from the places where samples were taken from.
Apart from there being no evidence of blood, there was no evidence of Madeleine's DNA.

[Carana]

I think the image below represents trainee CSIs investigating blood spatter ...

Although the blood is still visible here ... the same technique for using markers as in 5A is in evidence.  They are also taking and photographing measurements between the points of interest.
Probably to determine type of spray ... whether blunt force trauma or arterial?

Having viewed more actual crime scenes than is healthy to find that illustration, I think it would be safe to say the "blood spatter in 5A" is just another myth based on misinterpretation of the photograph showing the markers from the places where samples were taken from.
Apart from there being no evidence of blood, there was no evidence of Madeleine's DNA.

And that's the bottom line.

None could be forensically proven to be blood and very few of those results had any similarities to Madeleine's DNA.

So just how many unconnected people are supposed to have died due to injuries on that wall that Keela didn't even react to? As far as I know (and hope), the little boy seems to be alive, as does the PT CSI cop.

Totally silly, IMO.

[lordpookles]

Interesting photo Brietta - anyone watch Dexter??

Yeah, no identification of blood, no identification of Madelienes DNA. Probably fair to conclude that in anyone's house where a wall hasn't been painted for 5+ years you would find just as many spots to marker using this same technique.

Luminol is an interesting substance. I remember in the Amanada Knox case, when they applied luminol, they found what looked like bloody footprints leading from the murder room to the bathroom and matched the shape and size of Amanda's footprint. Luminol from memory reacts to blood, pineapple juice and a few other materials. Appears to suggest in this case that bringing the dogs in was more valuable then using luminol, which affects the dog's ability.

[ShiningInLuz]

And that's the bottom line.

None could be forensically proven to be blood and very few of those results had any similarities to Madeleine's DNA.

So just how many unconnected people are supposed to have died due to injuries on that wall that Keela didn't even react to? As far as I know (and hope), the little boy seems to be alive, as does the PT CSI cop.

Totally silly, IMO.

The issue for me isn't what the 'spatter' is not, but rather what the 'spatter' is.  An explanation of the 'spatter' should include looking at all the evidence that is known about this forensic examination.

As it so happens, in looking in to this issue, quite a number of peripheral issues that have been raised.  The PJ Files contain at least a couple of instances where it appears PJ Inspectors misunderstood the capability of the dogs and the conduct of forensic analysis, and wrote erroneous summary reports to Amaral that lead directly to the conclusion there was blood and a dead body in 5A.

That particular angle will take a bit of exploring, so I'll stack it up for another day.  In the meantime, searching for an explanation for the 'blood spatter' is proving to be interesting.  My thanks to those who have posted links, sent me links and pointed out issues.  It has all helped to cut my work-load and sharpen my thinking.

[ShiningInLuz]

When did the details of the dog alerts in McCann-related areas get leaked?

Whilst trying to analyse the "blood spatter" story, I have come across a piece, from memory on JdN on the same day as the PT team went in to follow up on the dog alerts, that alleged blood was found in that forensic search.

That would push the dog alerts plus "blood" story back to when the PT team went in to find out what the dogs were up to.

For guests less familiar with the case, and unacquainted with my blog, I am having considerable difficulty in finding "blood splatter", whether it relates to Madeleine or not.

And I am having one heck of an issue in making sense of the dog alerts.

Oh, and the forensic exercise and FSS report appear to be a bit of a shambles.

But I do know now how to watch scorpions at night, inspect hotels, and check for pet urine.  Can't be all bad.

[Mr Gray]

Whilst trying to analyse the "blood spatter" story, I have come across a piece, from memory on JdN on the same day as the PT team went in to follow up on the dog alerts, that alleged blood was found in that forensic search.

That would push the dog alerts plus "blood" story back to when the PT team went in to find out what the dogs were up to.

For guests less familiar with the case, and unacquainted with my blog, I am having considerable difficulty in finding "blood splatter", whether it relates to Madeleine or not.

And I am having one heck of an issue in making sense of the dog alerts.

Oh, and the forensic exercise and FSS report appear to be a bit of a shambles.

But I do know now how to watch scorpions at night, inspect hotels, and check for pet urine.  Can't be all bad.

In what way does the FSS report appear to be  a bit of a shambles...it isn't  ....and why are you having trouble making sense of the alerts

[ShiningInLuz]

In what way does the FSS report appear to be  a bit of a shambles...and why are you having trouble making sense of the alerts

AFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots.  Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not.  Hardly impressive.

As to the alerts, 15 or 16 "spatter" spots, an alert to perhaps 1 of them.  Does this mean the rest were not blood?  Eddie and Keela should have been barking madly if they were.  And if they were human fluids but not blood, what was Eddie up to?  Was he slacking on the job?  And if they were not human, so both dogs got it right, do we have animal urine sprayed over the scene?  And if we have animal urine, couldn't the FSS tell it was non-human?

Given that the FSS ran DNA from 4 of the spots against the entire UK database, surely we can conclude that the DNA was of human origin.  Or can we?

[Mr Gray]

AFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots.  Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not.  Hardly impressive.

As to the alerts, 15 or 16 "spatter" spots, an alert to perhaps 1 of them.  Does this mean the rest were not blood?  Eddie and Keela should have been barking madly if they were.  And if they were human fluids but not blood, what was Eddie up to?  Was he slacking on the job?  And if they were not human, so both dogs got it right, do we have animal urine sprayed over the scene?  And if we have animal urine, couldn't the FSS tell it was non-human?

Given that the FSS ran DNA from 4 of the spots against the entire UK database, surely we can conclude that the DNA was of human origin.  Or can we?

I can guarantee you have nothing to support that statement in red....you should remove it


there were no alerts to the spots by the dogs..

[Brietta]

AFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots.  Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not.  Hardly impressive.

As to the alerts, 15 or 16 "spatter" spots, an alert to perhaps 1 of them.  Does this mean the rest were not blood?  Eddie and Keela should have been barking madly if they were.  And if they were human fluids but not blood, what was Eddie up to?  Was he slacking on the job?  And if they were not human, so both dogs got it right, do we have animal urine sprayed over the scene?  And if we have animal urine, couldn't the FSS tell it was non-human?

Given that the FSS ran DNA from 4 of the spots against the entire UK database, surely we can conclude that the DNA was of human origin.  Or can we?

If you watch the video again, Shining, you will see Keela eventually alerting to an area of the tiled floor.  She didn't alert anywhere at the wall.
Her style of alert is unmistakeable.  She 'freezes' and stands with her nose just short of the source.  Therefore according to the CSI dog, let alone there being no 'splatter' there was no blood on the wall.

[ShiningInLuz]

I can guarantee you have nothing to support that statement in red....you should remove it


there were no alerts to the spots by the dogs..

You can't guarantee me anything.

And therein lies the point.  The dogs both alerted at the same position.  And that is why you happen to be wrong and Brietta happens to be right.

Brietta has the dogs alerting on the floor tiles, which they most certainly did.

You have them alerting to none of the spots, which is about as wrong as it gets.

I am looking at why the dogs did not alert to all of the other "blood spatter".  For the simple reason that, if everything was blood spatter, then the dogs should not have signalled once, as per Brietta.

They should not have signalled zero times, as per your ...

They should have been up and down those walls like spring puppies.  But they weren't.  Make sense of that.

[Mr Gray]

You can't guarantee me anything.

And therein lies the point.  The dogs both alerted at the same position.  And that is why you happen to be wrong and Brietta happens to be right.

Brietta has the dogs alerting on the floor tiles, which they most certainly did.

You have them alerting to none of the spots, which is about as wrong as it gets.

I am looking at why the dogs did not alert to all of the other "blood spatter".  For the simple reason that, if everything was blood spatter, then the dogs should not have signalled once, as per Brietta.

They should not have signalled zero times, as per your ...

They should have been up and down those walls like spring puppies.  But they weren't.  Make sense of that.

I canguarantee that you will not supply any evidence to support your post highlighted in red because there is nothing to support it
The dogs did not alert to the marks on the wall which would suggest they are not blood

[ShiningInLuz]

I canguarantee that you will not supply any evidence to support your post highlighted in red because there is nothing to support it
The dogs did not alert to the marks on the wall which would suggest they are not blood

Trouble is, Eddie alerted to 'cadaver scent', whether it came from blood or not.

Spot 9 was attributed to human C Gordon by the FSS.  Was this remnant of C Gordon, who spent a week in 5A immediately before the McCanns, still alive?  Or was it by the time of the inspection dead?  And should not wonder dog Eddie have alerted to said dead human smell?  Or did the FSS make a fool of themselves?

You are way behind the curve on this analysis.  So what you can guarantee is roughly zero.

[Mr Gray]

Trouble is, Eddie alerted to 'cadaver scent', whether it came from blood or not.

Spot 9 was attributed to human C Gordon by the FSS.  Was this remnant of C Gordon, who spent a week in 5A immediately before the McCanns, still alive?  Or was it by the time of the inspection dead?  And should not wonder dog Eddie have alerted to said dead human smell?  Or did the FSS make a fool of themselves?

You are way behind the curve on this analysis.  So what you can guarantee is roughly zero.

#
looks like i am 100%  correct so far as you still have posted nothing to support your assertion

[Mr Gray]

Trouble is, Eddie alerted to 'cadaver scent', whether it came from blood or not.

Spot 9 was attributed to human C Gordon by the FSS.  Was this remnant of C Gordon, who spent a week in 5A immediately before the McCanns, still alive?  Or was it by the time of the inspection dead?  And should not wonder dog Eddie have alerted to said dead human smell?  Or did the FSS make a fool of themselves?

You are way behind the curve on this analysis.  So what you can guarantee is roughly zero.

as regards spot 9......you seem very confused...eddie does not alert to all residual cellular material

[mercury]

AFAIK, additional tests to confirm blood were not done at the front end (under instruction from UK), and not done at the rear end on the "blood splatter" spots.  Consequently, the spots could be blood, or not.  Hardly impressive.

As to the alerts, 15 or 16 "spatter" spots, an alert to perhaps 1 of them.  Does this mean the rest were not blood?  Eddie and Keela should have been barking madly if they were.  And if they were human fluids but not blood, what was Eddie up to?  Was he slacking on the job?  And if they were not human, so both dogs got it right, do we have animal urine sprayed over the scene?  And if we have animal urine, couldn't the FSS tell it was non-human?

Given that the FSS ran DNA from 4 of the spots against the entire UK database, surely we can conclude that the DNA was of human origin.  Or can we?

Mosquitos?

No, because the dgs dont alert to insects blood