AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
Apologies in advance for the drive-by posting...esp. if already covered ad nauseum...
Thought I recalled one of the statements made by LE to the media early on in the case that the stain in the trunk responded to black light exposure (luminol test).
However, IF I understood correctly that the stain was stated recently NOT to be the result of decomp fluid/blood (not sure if I understood that...or perhaps misread it, etc. :bang
So...curious 'bout how these two things could coexist I searched and found this article (link), which includes the following comment:
"Typically, luminol only shows investigators that there might be blood in an area, since other substances, including household bleach, can also cause the luminol to glow"
BJB, pp. 50-55 of this doc explains that the FBI did not find any BLOOD on or obtain any DNA typing results for any of the spare tire cover/trunk liner samples. I believe it is a big overstatement for ClickOrlando to say that the FBI determined that the stain did not contain any "bodily fluids." You can't always get DNA results from an item that contains DNA (especially if it gets "cleaned" first....).
http://www.clickorlando.com/download...9/21146801.pdf