Blood spatter? Fact or myth?

[ShiningInLuz]

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

I have to say I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand the dog alerts in general, or the lack of them.  Or the dog alerts in this particular instance.  Or the lack of them.

We are still at a stage where Brietta was more accurate in describing the dog alerts.

[ShiningInLuz]

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

Enlighten us to which 'residual cellular material' Eddie is supposed to not alert to. 

I do hope we are not talking about pork sausages and gravy being spattered over the wall, because despite eating dinner (piri piri chicken, Italian chips, tomato onion cucumber and parsley salad), I am getting hungry again.

[ShiningInLuz]

Mosquitos?

No, because the dgs dont alert to insects blood

To answer, mosquitos has indeed been suggested as the source of the 'blood spatter' on the wall.  In my personal experience, that would require a lot of mosquitos.  Which would require them leaving traces up and down the walls.  And it would mean the mosquitos were sloppy enough to leave stuff on the walls but clean enough that the traces survived.

I am not ruling out mosquitoes.  I would like to come up with something better.  I still have to factor in the dogs, which should alert to human decay, the PT team that carried out the investigation, and the FSS Report.

[Mr Gray]

I have to say I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand the dog alerts in general, or the lack of them.  Or the dog alerts in this particular instance.  Or the lack of them.

We are still at a stage where Brietta was more accurate in describing the dog alerts.

the dog alerts are simple and very easy to understand so your conclusion is wrong. The dogs did not alert to these marks on the wall. There is no evidence the marks on the wall were blood

[Carana]

To answer, mosquitos has indeed been suggested as the source of the 'blood spatter' on the wall.  In my personal experience, that would require a lot of mosquitos.  Which would require them leaving traces up and down the walls.  And it would mean the mosquitos were sloppy enough to leave stuff on the walls but clean enough that the traces survived.

I am not ruling out mosquitoes.  I would like to come up with something better.  I still have to factor in the dogs, which should alert to human decay, the PT team that carried out the investigation, and the FSS Report.

If there had been microscopic traces of human blood from splatted mosquitos on the wall, Keela should still have reacted, but didn't.

[Brietta]

If there had been microscopic traces of human blood from splatted mosquitos on the wall, Keela should still have reacted, but didn't.

Keela showed no interest whatsoever in the wall.  She and Eddie alerted only to the floor, Keela by freezing ~ Eddie by barking.

Therefore there was no blood from anyone least of all Madeleine, on the wall as far as the dogs' inspection is concerned.

[ShiningInLuz]

If there had been microscopic traces of human blood from splatted mosquitos on the wall, Keela should still have reacted, but didn't.

If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.

Therein lies the problem.

If human blood, both dogs should have alerted.  If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted.  If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?

At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert.  And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type.

Bit of a tricky one.

[Mr Gray]

If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.

Therein lies the problem.

If human blood, both dogs should have alerted.  If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted.  If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?

At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert.  And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type

Bit of a tricky one.

Why should eddie have alerted to them....dead skin cells would not cause eddie to alert and skin cells are being shed all the time...eddie would not alert to saliva.....again saliva containg shed epithelial cells that would contain dna...eddie would not alert to sweat...again which may contain shed epithelial cells..

So there is your answer... Not tricky at all from the poster you claimed did not understand the dog alerts

[Alfie]

If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.

Therein lies the problem.

If human blood, both dogs should have alerted.  If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted.  If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?

At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert.  And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type.

Bit of a tricky one.

What are these human marks that aren't blood but which Eddie should have alerted to then?  Bits of dead body?

[Brietta]

If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.

Therein lies the problem.

If human blood, both dogs should have alerted.  If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted.  If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?

At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert.  And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type.

Bit of a tricky one.

I don't think it is tricky at all, Shining.

Eddie alerted to the Renault key fob ... so did Keela.
Eddie alerted behind the couch ... so did Keela.

Testing in the case of the key fob showed cellular material ... which must have been blood to trigger Keela's alert.
Testing of the area under the tiles proved positive for blood.

Eddie was trained to alert to blood, and in those two instances that is exactly what he did.  The 'cadaver alert' at the door of the Renault was not.  The 'cadaver alert' behind the couch was not.  The 'blood spatter' on the wall was not.

Just three of the erroneous statements in the sandy foundation on which the McCann witch hunt is built.

[John]

Blood on walls in apartments is nothing new in tropical and semi tropical countries.  You only need to swat a big fat mosquito on a wall to find out.

Sending Eddie and Keels to Portugal effectively put them outside their comfort zones.  Smells and odours in Portugal are massively different to those in a cold temperate UK so I would question the reliability of any of the alerts in such circumstances.

[Carana]

If the marks are human, then Eddie should have alerted to some or all of them.

Therein lies the problem.

If human blood, both dogs should have alerted.  If human but not blood, Eddie should have alerted.  If non-human, why was the FSS running 4 of the spots against the national DNA database?

At a minimum, we need a human source, non-blood, to which Eddie does not alert.  And all of the spots on the wall have to fall into that type.

Bit of a tricky one.

It's not clear if Eddie was reacting to the wall itself or to some scent in that general area.

Some of those little traces on the wall, or even on the skirting, assuming that they were identified by the torch, could have been a mixture of a toddler's sticky finger, a cleaner's drops of perspiration, someone sneezing... virtually anything.

I don't see why all of them have to be within his parameters.

Although I find that his reaction to Cuddle Cat (if he did indeed react to it at all, which isn't terribly clear either) could potentially be explained by the anaerobic decomposition of perspiration and skin cells over months despite having been washed just prior to his arrival, I very much doubt if he'd have reacted to drops of perspiration on a wall.

The wording is a bit ambiguous, but my understanding of one of the passages is that he could have reacted to the remnant scent of a bit of blood somewhere. A forgotten band-aid found and removed prior to arrival, for example. Hardly unusual in a beach-side holiday let. Keela wouldn't have done as she would only react to a physical presence.

[Carana]

Blood on walls in apartments is nothing new in tropical and semi tropical countries.  You only need to swat a big fat mosquito on a wall to find out.

Sending Eddie and Keels to Portugal effectively put them outside their comfort zones.  Smells and odours in Portugal are massively different to those in a cold temperate UK so I would question the reliability of any of the alerts in such circumstances.

To an extent, yes. They worked late into the night in unusually hot and possibly humid conditions (for them) over a short period of time. That alone might have been a factor, but there could also be scents in such conditions that seemed stronger to Eddie, at least, due to drainage, a long lost bandaid or anything else.


I'm sure you've read about some of the gorier theories by people in some quarters who may have overdosed on Stephen King novels over what Eddie could have been reacting to... spinal fluid spurting all over the place and all the rest of it.

If there had been a major injury of such a nature, I find it unlikely that there wouldn't have been traces of blood.

I'm not sure where the rumour originated that there had been signs of a clean up (and miraculously washed curtains) on the night... but then someone still has to explain a) how the original CSI team didn't notice, b) how you eliminate Person A's DNA yet leave numerous traces of every other odd bod who'd touched the area.

It doesn't make sense, IMO.

[ShiningInLuz]

Blood on walls in apartments is nothing new in tropical and semi tropical countries.  You only need to swat a big fat mosquito on a wall to find out.

Sending Eddie and Keels to Portugal effectively put them outside their comfort zones.  Smells and odours in Portugal are massively different to those in a cold temperate UK so I would question the reliability of any of the alerts in such circumstances.

That must be a potential explanation, particularly given some of the spots had DNA from more than one person.  And if it is the explanation, then it does call into question Eddie and Keela's abilities within 5A.

I'm simply, on my blog, trying to work through the options methodically, and on here I'm trying to benefit from posters prior thoughts on this issue.

Does anyone have an opinion as to why previous occupant Paul Gordon's extended bleeding bypassed the dogs?

In an FSS communication, it is said spots 1, 4, 9, and 16, plus the stain found on a bedcover on the afternoon of 4 May 2007, were run past first the UK national DNA database, then against a volunteer database of 282 people.  Does anyone know more about that volunteer database?  I am assuming that as 2 of these matched a young son of Paul Gordon, it is people connected with 5A, but I would appreciate anything extra on this.

And while we are at it, does luminol interfere with normal DNA testing or with the LCN multiplying technique used by the FSS?

 

[Jean-Pierre]

That must be a potential explanation, particularly given some of the spots had DNA from more than one person.  And if it is the explanation, then it does call into question Eddie and Keela's abilities within 5A.

I'm simply, on my blog, trying to work through the options methodically, and on here I'm trying to benefit from posters prior thoughts on this issue.

Does anyone have an opinion as to why previous occupant Paul Gordon's extended bleeding bypassed the dogs?

In an FSS communication, it is said spots 1, 4, 9, and 16, plus the stain found on a bedcover on the afternoon of 4 May 2007, were run past first the UK national DNA database, then against a volunteer database of 282 people.  Does anyone know more about that volunteer database?  I am assuming that as 2 of these matched a young son of Paul Gordon, it is people connected with 5A, but I would appreciate anything extra on this.

And while we are at it, does luminol interfere with normal DNA testing or with the LCN multiplying technique used by the FSS?

 

In answer to your final question, some research (Gross, Harris and Kaldun 1999)  has shown that it does not appear to have an adverse effect on PCR DNA analysis.  It follows that if it does not adversely affect PCR DNA analysis then it should not adversely affect LCN, which is in effect an amplification technique. 

Trying to find a suitable link as extracting the relevant passages is a bit of a trial.