Blood spatter? Fact or myth?

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

My apologies if I have missed this.  It can be quite difficult catching up on a thread at times.

Now, when you say 'blood does not fluoresce under UV light' do you mean one cannot find blood spots with UV light?  That would be a big step forward in understanding what happened.

[Alfie]

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.

I would estimate just over 150cm, lets say 160cm.  A 90cm child standing on a sofa 35cm off the ground with its arm extended may reach that spot esp jumping up and down, or if standing on the  arm of the sofa. 

[Alfie]

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?

Isn't it a case of "dog goes woof" behind the sofa humans go into "hunt the cadaver remains" mode? 

[Mr Gray]

My apologies if I have missed this.  It can be quite difficult catching up on a thread at times.

Now, when you say 'blood does not fluoresce under UV light' do you mean one cannot find blood spots with UV light?  That would be a big step forward in understanding what happened.

if the stains were only visible under uv light then they were not blood

[ShiningInLuz]

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?

If you look at the dog videos, there was a settee in there backed up to the window, that had to be removed to let Eddie and Keela onto the tiles for a good sniff.

I think it might be in Amaral's book that Gerry allegedly stated that he pushed the sofa up against the wall because the kids were throwing cards behind it.

As to why just this wall, good question.  Even if it was re the dog alerts, I think I would have had a look elsewhere in 5A, as a reference. 

Perhaps it was thought the dogs were infallible.

[John]

So it was the wall where the settee normally sat and where the dog alerted to blood on the floor.  The fact that only this wall returned CSI markers isvin itself very interesting?


This site sets out the results rather well, the conclusions however are another story...

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html

Stains on FLOOR:



# 1 - incomplete
# 2 - mixed
# 3 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)

Stains on EAST wall:



# 4 - incomplete
# 5 - mixed
# 6 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison
# 13 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

Stains on NORTH wall:



# 7 - mixed
# 8 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison
# 9 - incomplete
# 10 - mixed
# 11 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
# 12 - mixed

Stains on COUCH:



# 14 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)
# 15 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)

[ShiningInLuz]

if the stains were only visible under uv light then they were not blood

That's another assertion, without any backing evidence.

I've asked Carana if this information can be proved.  I will cross-check on this myself because my next blog post will be about what shows up under UV light.

So how about you.  Do you have a cite for your assertion?

[ShiningInLuz]

This might help...

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html

Stains on FLOOR:



# 1 - incomplete
# 2 - mixed
# 3 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)

Stains on EAST wall:



# 4 - incomplete
# 5 - mixed
# 6 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison
# 13 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

Stains on NORTH wall:



# 7 - mixed
# 8 - too meagre to permit a meaningful comparison
# 9 - incomplete
# 10 - mixed
# 11 - unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
# 12 - mixed

Stains on COUCH:



# 14 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)
# 15 - weak and incomplete (before LCN), mixed, low-level (after LCN)

Amber alert.  Textusa is fairly good re research, but does get it wrong, as we all do.  Textusa is currently assigning spot 9 to C Gordon, the same child who left a stain on the bedcover in the children's bedroom in 5A.

[John]

I have removed several unnecessarily provocative comments and one downright defammatory one from this mornings posts.  Members are reminded that this is a public forum with posts being reproduced quite quickly on search engines like Google and thereafter read by thousands of people.  Please keep posts civil, factual and constructive.  TY

[Alice Purjorick]

This might help with guesstimates of dimensions.

"windows are traditionally about 900 from the floor to allow for furniture to be placed beneath them".

[Jean-Pierre]

That's another assertion, without any backing evidence.

I've asked Carana if this information can be proved.  I will cross-check on this myself because my next blog post will be about what shows up under UV light.

So how about you.  Do you have a cite for your assertion?

The answer is quite straightforward.

Shining a UV light will help to highlight subtle differences.  If a liquid is spilled on a material and dries it will leave a residue.  This can be hard to detect under normal light but will show up under a uv source. 

So it can be handy in showing where something has spilt and dried but Will not distinguish the type of liquid.  That will require microscopic or chemical analysis. 

While we are about it, The marks on the wall are not blood splatter.  Sorry to disappoint.  Blood splatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern.  What is seen in the photos of the wall are just random grubby marks. 

[Mr Gray]

That's another assertion, without any backing evidence.

I've asked Carana if this information can be proved.  I will cross-check on this myself because my next blog post will be about what shows up under UV light.

So how about you.  Do you have a cite for your assertion?

If you watch many of the TV “Cop” shows, you will see at some point those working a crime scene using a blue light in search of invisible blood (blood stains that were cleaned up). Shazam! Blue-white stains appear all over the floors, walls and objects sitting around the crime scene! But in reality—this cannot happen. You see, blood does not fluoresce by applying UV or visible blue light.

Blood, even minute quantities that remain after clean-up, can be made to “luminesce;” that is, by spraying certain chemicals such as Luminol, BlueStar or Fluorescene on the various surfaces, blood will luminesce, or simply “glow in the dark”—and adding blue light is not necessary. So what can alternate light sources reveal? Although blood does not fluoresce, certain other physiological fluids will. UV alternate light sources can reveal the following: seminal fluid, saliva and urine stains. Also, certain narcotics will fluoresce as will bone and teeth fragments.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/alternatelightsources-print.html

[Mr Gray]

any advance on...no blood...no splatter and no connection to Maddie

[ShiningInLuz]

The answer is quite straightforward.

Shining a UV light will help to highlight subtle differences.  If a liquid is spilled on a material and dries it will leave a residue.  This can be hard to detect under normal light but will show up under a uv source. 

So it can be handy in showing where something has spilt and dried but Will not distinguish the type of liquid.  That will require microscopic or chemical analysis. 

While we are about it, The marks on the wall are not blood splatter.  Sorry to disappoint.  Blood splatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern.  What is seen in the photos of the wall are just random grubby marks.

Thanks for helping to clarify.

Question.  "Blood spatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern."  Does it?  I would have thought that depended on the type of injury.

I'm curious because on my blog I have ruled out a gunshot injury pattern and a repeated bludgeoning injury pattern, and I'm keen to rule out any other pattern that does not fit the photo.

Random grubby marks may well be the truth, but I would like to 'prove' what the photo shows.  As best as I can.

[Mr Gray]

Thanks for helping to clarify.

Question.  "Blood spatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern."  Does it?  I would have thought that depended on the type of injury.

I'm curious because on my blog I have ruled out a gunshot injury pattern and a repeated bludgeoning injury pattern, and I'm keen to rule out any other pattern that does not fit the photo.

Random grubby marks may well be the truth, but I would like to 'prove' what the photo shows.  As best as I can.

what do you mean by prove....prove is a word used very loosely on here...yet we have absolute proof.....beyond reasonable doubt....and on the balance of probablities...which one do you mean