Blood spatter? Fact or myth?

[Mr Gray]

Let me see if I've got this right.  Are you claiming that these are stains visible to the naked eye?  Just how big is this 'human dust'?  Why didn't someone clean it if it was visible to the naked eye?  Why didn't the PT team on the afternoon of 4 May eyeball this 'human dust'/stains?

How extensive was Gordon's bleed?  Read Paul Gordon's statement.  Read Saleigh Gordon's statement.

And it does matter.  The only potential alert to Mr Gordon's cut was the one in the parents' bedroom.  This suggests Mr Grime may have been over-egging the capability of the dogs, one way or another.

What importance is it?  What?  It was important enough for the FSS to run the results against NDNAD.  Why do you think they did that?  It was important enough for the FSS to establish a volunteer DNA database from 282 people and run the results against that.  Why do you think they did that?

the spots are of no importance having seen the report from the FSS.......the residue's may have been important...but now we know they do not relate to maddie we know they are not

I have said several times the marks are more than likely hand marks..sweat..saliva...containing skin cells. At least you now realise eddie would not alert to dead skin cells

[Carana]

(snip)
The bits of information that could be recovered were small, and did not fit Madeleine meeting her demise, IMO.

However, Amaral has raised the possibility that at least some of the marks were due to an attempt to resuscitate Madeleine, before she expired.  Therefore the concept of "blood spatter" is important, in the sense of trying to determine whether the marks are blood and whether they constitute spatter.  This in turn requires a better explanation than that provided by the FSS.

I understand that you're just trying to get to the bottom of it, SIL.

However, just have a look at how many results, however meagre, showed any resemblance to Madeleine's profile...

[Mr Gray]

I pointed out way back that if this is blood, which we don't know, then the dogs are called into question.

Now, what makes you assert that the remains were visible?  That makes no sense.  It does not match the evidence.

visible as in the amount present...the remnants were visible under uv light...makes sense to me

[ShiningInLuz]

my explanation is skin cells from sweaty hands...not dust..

which evidence am I ignoring.......there is no splatter...no confirmation of blood...no link to maddie ...thats the evidence...you seem very confused

At least you have moved on from human dust, so we are making progress.

Since I have not claimed blood and I have not claimed spatter, I would appreciate it if you do not imply that I have.

[Carana]

It would if it was indeed 'spatter'.  It would mean that not only there was an incident, but there was a serious incident.

The reverse is not certain, though highly likely.  If it transpires there is little or no evidence of a major incident, then many of the ideas floating the Internet would be trashed.  [ moderated ]  Was there a botched burglary in which someone bashed Madeleine?  Hardly likely, if there is no spatter.  Did Madeleine fall off the sofa and crack her head?  Hardly likely, if there is no spatter.

So spatter would tell us a lot, while no spatter would tend to rule out many suggestions for a violent death.

Do we have a common understanding of "spatter"?

Yes, one could throw different colours of paint on a canvas and sell it as a piece of art. Those less impressed with the "deaper meaning" of modern art might simply see a multi-coloured spatter of paint.

In this context, however, none of the "colours" on the wall canvas (whether acrylic or oil-based) corresponded to Madeleine.

[Carana]

I pointed out way back that if this is blood, which we don't know, then the dogs are called into question.

Now, what makes you assert that the remains were visible?  That makes no sense.  It does not match the evidence.

Hmmm. Keela could have been correct in the two spots that she alerted to... but none were on the wall.

And none of the traces on the wall corresponded to Madeleine.

[ShiningInLuz]

the spots are of no importance having seen the report from the FSS.......the residuesw may have been important...but now we know they do not relate to maddie we know they are not

I have said several times the marks are more than likely hand marks..sweat..saliva...containing skin cells. At least you now realise eddie would not alert to dead skin cells

If an incident took place in that location, the information that can be extracted is important.  If the information that can be extracted suggests, or strongly suggests, that no major incident occurred in that location, that is important.

And as I stated earlier, why I get in to factoring in the dogs, I will try to get a precise understanding of what Eddie did and did not alert to.  If you wish to assert Eddie did not alert to human material sufficient to lift a DNA sample, please feel free to make your case.  It would make my task easier.

[Alfie]

You haven't given an estimate of the height of spot 9, nor a justification for your opinion, so why would I think I've got it wrong?

I derived my estimate based on the height of the window sill.  The only other independent estimate happens to be by Textusa, and is based on floor tile size.  Two independent calculation methods which produce roughly the same result.

I have used my common sense.  If you look at the picture, you say spot 9 is six feet off the ground.  If so then imagine a man of six foot standing in that corner - the scale is all wrong.  In my house all the windows and doors are at the same height  - are they in yours?  Most standard doors are around 195cm high, now if the doors and the windows in Apartment 5A were at the same height, then your spot nine is not 180cm off the ground. 

[ShiningInLuz]

I understand that you're just trying to get to the bottom of it, SIL.

However, just have a look at how many results, however meagre, showed any resemblance to Madeleine's profile...

I will indeed, when I factor in the FSS report, in detail.  There seems at the moment to be one spot that is potentially Madeleine's, one that is a Portuguese policeman's, one that is a previous guest, 3 that are unknown but not Madeleine's and presumably not from the McCanns and 9 that may be dangling.

So I need to go through the photo alongside the FSS report, subtract the 'known' ones, and see what is left.  Oh, and factor in the spots with multiple DNA.  This task is stacked in my 'to do' list.

[Mr Gray]

If an incident took place in that location, the information that can be extracted is important.  If the information that can be extracted suggests, or strongly suggests, that no major incident occurred in that location, that is important.

And as I stated earlier, why I get in to factoring in the dogs, I will try to get a precise understanding of what Eddie did and did not alert to.  If you wish to assert Eddie did not alert to human material sufficient to lift a DNA sample, please feel free to make your case.  It would make my task easier.

eddie does not alert to shed human skin....as it is present in house dust if he did then he would alert everywhere....the marks on the wall could well have been handmarks containing shed skin cells...these would produce a dna profile....I have posted this several times

[ShiningInLuz]

visible as in the amount present...the remnants were visible under uv light...makes sense to me

That is also a step forward.

If visible to the naked eye, everybody and his dog would have seen them.  If not visible to the naked eye, but visible under UV, it tells us quite a lot.

The 3rd PT team (4 May afternoon) could not have used UV in this area.  If they did, they missed too many suspect spots.

So this raises the question of what is seen under UV light, because that would give us some idea of what the spots might and might not be.

Since I arrived at this point a few days back and I've already researched the idea, may I ask if anyone fancies a bit of scorpion watching?

 

[Carana]

I will indeed, when I factor in the FSS report, in detail.  There seems at the moment to be one spot that is potentially Madeleine's, one that is a Portuguese policeman's, one that is a previous guest, 3 that are unknown but not Madeleine's and presumably not from the McCanns and 9 that may be dangling.

So I need to go through the photo alongside the FSS report, subtract the 'known' ones, and see what is left.  Oh, and factor in the spots with multiple DNA.  This task is stacked in my 'to do' list.

OK.

Bear in mind that if Amaral is actually correct that in the one sample potentially relating to her only contained 5 confirmed alleles, it's totally meaningless.

Lowe points out that those alleles might correspond to her, but could be the combination of her parents' DNA.

There's not enough information in the files to determine which 5 alleles were confirmed. The Gordon toddler shared a number of the same allele "values" with Madeleiene. Five or six from memory, but there's no way of knowing whether they were the same ones or not.

[Carana]

That is also a step forward.

If visible to the naked eye, everybody and his dog would have seen them.  If not visible to the naked eye, but visible under UV, it tells us quite a lot.

The 3rd PT team (4 May afternoon) could not have used UV in this area.  If they did, they missed too many suspect spots.

So this raises the question of what is seen under UV light, because that would give us some idea of what the spots might and might not be.

Since I arrived at this point a few days back and I've already researched the idea, may I ask if anyone fancies a bit of scorpion watching?

 

I posted a few links a couple of days ago, SIL.

Blood does not fluoresce under UV light, apparently. With an exception involving a rare scenario (from what I can gather), the torch is used to find other fluids of a potentially suspicious nature.

Not useless, as even traces of perspiration, saliva or urine could help some cases move forward... but I simply can't find any potentially significant results in this one.

[ShiningInLuz]

I have used my common sense.  If you look at the picture, you say spot 9 is six feet off the ground.  If so then imagine a man of six foot standing in that corner - the scale is all wrong.  In my house all the windows and doors are at the same height  - are they in yours?  Most standard doors are around 195cm high, now if the doors and the windows in Apartment 5A were at the same height, then your spot nine is not 180cm off the ground. 

May I ask what your estimate is of the height of spot 9?  I will be happy to check my estimate if it appears to be seriously off, but I can't stick a 6ft man into the photo.

I used the height of the window sill. The PJ Files show it as 92cm.  I estimate the spot to be about double that.

Textusa used the floor tiles to produce a grid up the walls.  That estimate, from memory, is lower, but then so is the window sill.

Both of us got a spot that is not explained by a young child standing on the sofa, therefore an alternative explanation is required.

Side note.  I see the file name of your first photo ends in blood_spatter_pattern.jpg, which shows why this topic needs a bit of investigation.

[John]

Something which has just struck me is why just that wall?   Is the section of wall with all the CSI stickers on it per chance where the settee was located?