Blood spatter? Fact or myth?

[Alfie]

The child was on someone's shoulders happens to one of the better explanations I have heard for this.  The location was squeezed in against a sofa.  And the child was doing something to the wall whilst, what?

The dust was everywhere fails the photo test.  The photo has spots on the walls.

Are you ever going to explain how the sofa and the curtains seem to be basically free of this human dust?

Why do you keep harping on about this?  As far as I'm aware Davel has not claimed the sofa and curtains were free of "human" dust (all dust contains skin cells) - what is your point?

[ShiningInLuz]

If Spot 9 is the spot in the picture at the beginning of this thread then I would dispute that it was 1.8 metres off the ground.  The child could have left a deposit whilst standing on a piece of furniture for example.

Feel free to dispute to your heart's content, but a bit of supporting evidence would go down a treat.

And if you think C Gordon, at 2 years and 3 months could simply stand on a piece of furniture to make spot 9, please make your case.

[ShiningInLuz]

Is there anything in the FSS report that supports the view that the spots are blood spatters?  If not, then there's your answer.

There is nothing in the FSS reports to support blood spatters.  Is this my answer?

Since neither the PT analysts or the FSS analysts tested for blood, and since the FSS report says cellular material, what we have in the files does not rule out blood spatter.

If you don't test for blood, you cannot claim it is not blood spatter.

[ShiningInLuz]

Why do you keep harping on about this?  As far as I'm aware Davel has not claimed the sofa and curtains were free of "human" dust (all dust contains skin cells) - what is your point?

I harp on about it because it is claimed nearly all spots in this examination can be explained by human dust.  Yet the sofa and the curtains are remarkably free of human dust.

[Alfie]

Feel free to dispute to your heart's content, but a bit of supporting evidence would go down a treat.

And if you think C Gordon, at 2 years and 3 months could simply stand on a piece of furniture to make spot 9, please make your case.

Is spot 9 shown in the picture at the start of this thread?  If so, are you saying that a person of 5ft 9" would be able to fit in the space underneath it? 

[Alfie]

There is nothing in the FSS reports to support blood spatters.  Is this my answer?

Since neither the PT analysts or the FSS analysts tested for blood, and since the FSS report says cellular material, what we have in the files does not rule out blood spatter.

If you don't test for blood, you cannot claim it is not blood spatter.

How do you think you are going to be able to establish fact or myth without recourse to scientific analysis of the stuff on the wall?

[Alfie]

I harp on about it because it is claimed nearly all spots in this examination can be explained by human dust.  Yet the sofa and the curtains are remarkably free of human dust.

Who has claimed this?  Dust is human, largely, no need to differentiate between human dust and ordinary dust, it's all the same thing.

[ShiningInLuz]

Is spot 9 shown in the picture at the start of this thread?  If so, are you saying that a person of 5ft 9" would be able to fit in the space underneath it?

Your point was that a 2 years and 3 month old child could reach this height on furniture.

That's a no.

Davel introduced the child on shoulder, so unless you are Davel, stick to small child on furniture.  It's still a no!

[Wonderfulspam]

Dust. Anybody? No?

[Mr Gray]

The bit in bold I happen to find objectionable.  It is another assertion, with zero to help our guests find out how the discussion, which I am confident has taken place, actually went.  It implies an outcome with zero to support that outcome.

The snap results?  Did you mean snap results?  This is a genuine question because your predictive text seems to scramble a lot of your posts.

I think I know enough to be able to interpret the FSS results, whether interim or otherwise.  Therefore, I am confident that if I decide to criticise the FSS results, which I have not yet explained, I will be on solid ground.

You are half right in saying that if the material in a single spot had been found to be from Madeleine, and even if it had been blood, it would have been of very little significance indeed.

The problem is, the topic is not about a single spot, and whether that spot is from Madeleine, and whether that spot is blood.

It is about providing evidence as to whether "blood spatter" is a fact or a myth.

I find things you have said objectionable...the dna soup has been explained at length I presume you understand it..


the sofa may not always have been against the wall....or the child may have been standing on it...

the dust was everywhere and had they taken swabs from the sofa or anywhere else then they would have recoverd a dna profile...

blood splatter fact or myth...well it certainly isn't a fact so that leaves myth...simple...

[ShiningInLuz]

How do you think you are going to be able to establish fact or myth without recourse to scientific analysis of the stuff on the wall?

IF YOU DON'T TEST FOR BLOOD, HOW DO YOU RULE IN OR RULE OUT, BLOOD?

Apologies for the caps, but the simple, scientific fact is - the "spatter" was never tested for blood.

We are reliant on Eddie and Keela.  Are they superdogs or superdolts?

[Mr Gray]

I harp on about it because it is claimed nearly all spots in this examination can be explained by human dust.  Yet the sofa and the curtains are remarkably free of human dust.

the sofa and the curtains are not free from dust,,,they just were not swabbed...

[ShiningInLuz]

Who has claimed this?  Dust is human, largely, no need to differentiate between human dust and ordinary dust, it's all the same thing.

If you have been reading this thread, Davel has.  If you think there is no difference between 'dust' and 'human dust' and that all 'dust' is largely human, please talk to my cleaner.  Hopefully she is back in Luz tomorrow to clean up our 'human dust'.  It would be an interesting conversation.

[Mr Gray]

If you have been reading this thread, Davel has.  If you think there is no difference between 'dust' and 'human dust' and that all 'dust' is largely human, please talk to my cleaner.  Hopefully she is back in Luz tomorrow to clean up our 'human dust'.  It would be an interesting conversation.

#dust is not largely human....but dust contains shed skin cells...your cleaner may or may not be aware of this so she is irrelevant

[Mr Gray]

IF YOU DON'T TEST FOR BLOOD, HOW DO YOU RULE IN OR RULE OUT, BLOOD?

Apologies for the caps, but the simple, scientific fact is - the "spatter" was never tested for blood.

We are reliant on Eddie and Keela.  Are they superdogs or superdolts?

so your post is pure speculation...there is no evidence to support the splatter as being blood...therefore it is not  a fact