1. Yes, another far less sensitive (than Luminol) presumptive blood test was negative. The far more sensitive test was positive. It does not mean that there was no blood. It means there was very little blood. Like I said three times by now and quoted, the truth is that you know beforehand that you can't scientifically prove for the Luminol traces to have been made in blood since they were not visible.
No thanks to CSI programs - most people have a misconception of what Luminol is. It is NOT a blood detection agent. It's simply a chemical that turns lumnescent when oxidized. There are a number of chemical compounds that oxidize Luminol - including blood, urine, feces, substances containing iron and bleach.
Any blood oxidized in luminol - including the faintest traces - can be blotted and tested for DNA. Even the faintest trace of blood, even when cleaned will give a positive result. A negative result for blood is just that. Entirely negative.
So Luminol is only relevant to forensics when it's blotted, tested and the test yields positive blood results that are DNA matched and contextually relevant to the crime scene.
2. Amanda's footprints were right in front of the murder room. How do you know which way she walked?
That would be immaterial. It was Amanda's home. Her DNA, footprints, fingerprints and hair will be all over the cottage. In forensics - DNA and prints of all residents are excluded in common areas of cohabitation and in any way that's outside the context of the crime.
Amanda walked, barefoot, to Meridith's door and knocked on the door (iirc), then walked away from the door. So those footprints are accounted for and thus, not evidence towards the crime. They are not in a criminal context.
3. Why do they have to be smeared or why do you think they weren't so diluted that they weren't invisible to begin with? Smeared prints happen when there is a pool of blood. Not necessarily when you deal with a microscopic amount of blood.
Because blood is viscous. It smears when moved.
It's irrelevant though if the luminated substance was not positively tested for blood, DNA matched to the victim - then placed in the context of the crime scene. None of that happened. In the US, Canada, other European nations, most of the middle east, the south pacific... well everywhere else - it simply would not have been admissible as evidence - because it's not evidence of anything.
4. The most obvious cleanup was in the bathroom. Blood behind the toilet? Where is the blood in front? Half a footprint and blood on the bathmat? Where is the other half footprint and blood that fell next to the bathmat?
As a woman - sorry - but that makes me laugh. When a woman, living in a home with other women finds blood droplets on the floor in the bathroom - murder is not ever suspected. We simply assume that one of our roomies had their period and didn't know it - lumbering into the bathroom at night, unaware. Happens frequently. It's embarrassing as well - so good roomies grab a tissue and a bit of bleach and clean it.
5. Why would a shoe light up to Luminol? When you make up these kind of stories do you never wonder if what you are saying makes any sense?
...uhh.... cause someone was wearing a shoe? (see explanation of luminol above).
Unlike the US - countries around the Mediterranean basin have mainly stone floors and counters and tile bathrooms. Common method of cleaning is a bleach wash (yeah - I'm from that region of the world).
You take a bucket of hot water and a cup or more of bleach (in % strengths not available here) - and pour the entire bucket over surfaces. Scrub. Then squeegy the excess water on the floor down a floor drain, out over a balcony or down the hall and out the front door. Best way to clean stone and prevents black mold.
Luminol any surface in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon - you'll get a positive reading on shoes, hands, doorsteps, etc (ie: everywhere). If you don't test the readings - it's never assumed to be blood. Of course, when the public is not aware that luminol reacts to bleach - a jury can be deceived into believing something else.
'Anything in the house but blood'. Seriously? You were wrong on the bleach, and now this is the best you can come up with? I just listed the few items that could be found in a household and that react like blood and they don't make any sense here.
This whole argument is about dumping Luminol evidence because you can't further test it for blood. There is no rule that you should dump evidence because you can't scientifically prove it for a 100%. Same goes for other evidence like witness statements, or the bathmat print for example. A footprint can't be scientifically proven for a 100% to match a person. Still this is important evidence. Science is great but there are judges for a reason.
Again - luminol reaction is not evidence. Never has been, never will be.
The system of gathering evidence in Italy is partly to blame for the confusion. The prosecutor is the one who directs the testing. If the luminol wasn't tested -
that's because the prosecutor instructed his team not to test it. No matter how faint the trace - it's testable. If it was just recently cleaned with bleach, however, the entire area would luminate - equally - without distinction of prints. Just a solid blue glow.
Allow a CSI team and police to work independent of the judicial process (as you have in the US and I have here in Canada) and the luminol prints would have been tested, placed in context and then discarded and irrelevant to the investigation.
