Dysthymia
New Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 3
Unless I am misreading this document, it appears that the WMPD did conduct a second luminal test in the area on the very next day. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/luminol_dsmith.html
As I understand Luminol testing was NOT legally allowed to be used in Arkansas back in 1994 when the trials were held. Judge Burnett allowed the defense to state “no blood was found at the crime scene” but the prosecution was not allowed to mention that blood was found by the luminol testing.
What is important about these tests is that they were conducted at a crime scene where 3 little boys were brutally murdered and there was evidence of blood in several (8)places, not just on the places where the detectives laid the little boy’s bodies as stated by you. http://callahan.8k.wn3/img/crimelab.html
As I understand Luminol testing was NOT legally allowed to be used in Arkansas back in 1994 when the trials were held. Judge Burnett allowed the defense to state “no blood was found at the crime scene” but the prosecution was not allowed to mention that blood was found by the luminol testing.
What is important about these tests is that they were conducted at a crime scene where 3 little boys were brutally murdered and there was evidence of blood in several (8)places, not just on the places where the detectives laid the little boy’s bodies as stated by you. http://callahan.8k.wn3/img/crimelab.html
No there wasn't.
Luminol testing is not able, on its own, to show the presence of blood. If you look at the list of things, apart from blood, which luminol reacts with, common sense should tell you that if you spray luminol around in any patch of woods you will get positive reactions, it doesn't mean there was ever blood there.
And its got nothing to do with Arkansas laws in 1993 either. It doesn't make any difference what Arkansas legally recognises, chemistry does not recognise luminol as a blood specific chemical.
These are "going around in a circle" arguments. The WMPD were at a crime scene where one of the children had been emasculated. They conducted luminol testing and it showed positive for blood. What kind of a stretch in logic does it take to assume that the substance revealed by the test is blood where a brutal crime had been committed?
Except it wasn't. There was plenty of DNA found at that crime scene, just none of it belonged to Jason, Damien or Jessie.
What plenty of DNA? The DNA that did NOT exclude the WM3?
The notion of blood evidence is a flight from fact on your part, (or more accurately on Blink's part, your mistake is to have believed her). I agree the crime scene wasn't all that clean though, plenty of evidence there, just none of it pointing in the direction you want it to.
My sites are from Callahan. Which is as impartial as one can get. And to be personal, I do not like being attacked by you for stating my opinions here (with links to where I obtained my information.) I never noticed that you do the same thing.