Bleach: Brendan's pants and the garage floor

[MaxManning]

I actually think that this is a really good question. One of the more interesting things I have learned after seeing the documentary. I am not sure because I don't know how much bleach there was on those jeans. But I also know that no bleach was found in the garage, correct? And there was a luminol hit but it could have been animal blood or something?

There is no test that detects if bleach was used or not, to my knowledge. If so, it certainly wasn't mentioned in the dassey trial transcripts. So to say no bleach was found in the garage is not really relevant, unless you can actually prove that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is factual.

However, I do believe it to be the case, simply because of what Barb Janda says Brendan told her after her asking him about the bleach on his pants. I see no reason for her to lie, especially if she thought it would implicate her son to being involved. The recovered pants had bleach on them and police didn't discover these until someone told them they existed 5 months later. So, yes, I believe Barb Janda told them about those pants and that conversation.

Now we have bryan who says that Steve wanted brendan to help clean his garage.

So yet another person who is making reference to cleaning a garage.

I'm sorry, I'm not stating any of this as fact. But do I believe it. Yep -- I keep saying that the more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely I am to believe it happened. That's the case here.

Doesn't mean they weren't cleaning up transmission fluid or oil or deer blood. Just means, I think they were all telling the truth and it makes sense with the evidence we do have :

a 3x3 / 3x4 luminol it in the garage for some kind of blood - human or deer or whatever

Bleach on brendan's pants

2 people mentioning brendan cleaning steve's garage.


It's convincing to me

 

[Madeleine74]

Where the bleach bottle was found:

An empty bleach bottle was seized from a shelf in SA's bathroom/laundry area (per trial testimony).

 

[chaleigh26]

You need oxygen bleach to remove the Haemoglobin that's present in blood, but oxygen bleach will not stain clothing. If SA and BD were cleaning up blood, then them bleach stains on Brendan's jeans were not from that night.


http://http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html

 

[MaxManning]

Where the bleach bottle was found:

An empty bleach bottle was seized from a shelf in SA's bathroom/laundry area (per trial testimony).

So again, what is the relevance ? We all accept it was found. Go into anyone's house and you will find bleach likely. What is it about that bleach bottle that means something more ?

The pants having bleach on them, points to brendan using bleach, but does it matter where it came from ? Absence of a bleach bottle wouldn't convince me that it happened via bleach. I find that detail to be unimportant, since if someone was trying to hide the fact that they used bleach might get rid of the bottle, not keep it. So seems unimportant.


Is there another reason you are posting that for that I am unaware of ? brendan's prints on the bleach bottle might prove that he was in contact with the bleach bottle at steve's house. -- oddly enough, I don't see any evidence of them testing for that. Even if they did, would it be odd for his nephew to have handled a bleach bottle ?

now.. if there was halbach blood dna on a bleach bottle. now we have something that's not supposed to be there. not the case.

 

[Madeleine74]

Someone upstream opined that bleach maybe wasn't used in the garage since a bleach bottle wasn't found. I saw in the testimony that an empty bleach bottle was found, although the empty bottle wasn't in the garage, it was in SA's bathroom near the exit leading to the garage. So I posted that tidbit since someone had questioned it.

 

[MaxManning]

You need oxygen bleach to remove the Haemoglobin that's present in blood, but oxygen bleach will not stain clothing. If SA and BD were cleaning up blood, then them bleach stains on Brendan's jeans were not from that night.

http://http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html

This doesn't mean they weren't using chlorine bleach to try and clean up the garage floor.

I had no idea that there was two types of bleach until this case. So don't find it odd that they wouldn't know it either.

In fact, if someone asked me before this trial how to clean up blood, i'd have said bleach.

Which further supports my theory that they used the chlorine bleach and that it stained brendan's pants, just like he told his mother that night.

We also know there was a luminol hit, so that means that they didn't use oxygen bleach, if they used bleach at all.

Use of chlorine bleach is consistent with the garage floor having a luminol hit and brendan's pants having bleach stains.

Oxygen bleach is irrelevant, which is why in the dassey trial, they made no distinction.

 

[MaxManning]

Someone upstream opined that bleach maybe wasn't used in the garage since a bleach bottle wasn't found. I saw in the testimony that an empty bleach bottle was found, although the empty bottle wasn't in the garage, it was in SA's bathroom near the exit leading to the garage. So I posted that tidbit since someone had questioned it.

Ok, I'd say quote so they can see you are answering the question.

either way, i see brendan's pants to be the indication bleach was used, coupled with his mother saying she was told that. Bryan's testimony supports the cleaning as he said brendan was going to help steve clean his garage.

 

[chaleigh26]

well they weren't cleaning up TH blood with chlorine bleach.

 

[dexter75]

The more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely you are to believe it happened.:thinking:
If indeed there is NOT a test that detects if bleach has been used or not, imagine THAT?!

There is no test that detects if bleach was used or not, to my knowledge. If so, it certainly wasn't mentioned in the dassey trial transcripts. So to say no bleach was found in the garage is not really relevant, unless you can actually prove that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is factual.

However, I do believe it to be the case, simply because of what Barb Janda says Brendan told her after her asking him about the bleach on his pants. I see no reason for her to lie, especially if she thought it would implicate her son to being involved. The recovered pants had bleach on them and police didn't discover these until someone told them they existed 5 months later. So, yes, I believe Barb Janda told them about those pants and that conversation.

Now we have bryan who says that Steve wanted brendan to help clean his garage.

So yet another person who is making reference to cleaning a garage.

I'm sorry, I'm not stating any of this as fact. But do I believe it. Yep -- I keep saying that the more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely I am to believe it happened. That's the case here.

Doesn't mean they weren't cleaning up transmission fluid or oil or deer blood. Just means, I think they were all telling the truth and it makes sense with the evidence we do have :

a 3x3 / 3x4 luminol it in the garage for some kind of blood - human or deer or whatever

Bleach on brendan's pants

2 people mentioning brendan cleaning steve's garage.


It's convincing to me

 

[MaxManning]

The more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely you are to believe it happened.:thinking:

If you go into a building and someone is shot on the floor, and you ask the ten people in the room who shot him, and 9 of 10 people say it was the same guy. What is your initial reaction ?

That the 1 guy is lying or the 9 ?

If you get a better idea of who the other 9 guys are , maybe you change your opinion.

Are you suggesting more corroboration on a given occurrence , leads to the event being less likely ? :thinking:


Barb, Brendan, and Bryan all mention cleaning of steve's garage floor. You find that it's more or less likely that it happened because it's 3 people that have mentioned it and not just 1 ?

 

[TheDuchess]

If you go into a building and someone is shot on the floor, and you ask the ten people in the room who shot him, and 9 of 10 people say it was the same guy. What is your initial reaction ?

That the 1 guy is lying or the 9 ?

If you get a better idea of who the other 9 guys are , maybe you change your opinion.

Are you suggesting more corroboration on a given occurrence , leads to the event being less likely ? :thinking:


Barb, Brendan, and Bryan all mention cleaning of steve's garage floor. You find that it's more or less likely that it happened because it's 3 people that have mentioned it and not just 1 ?

Well, it is quite possible he used bleach to clean the garage, however, the chlorine bleach that stains clothes doesn't get rid of blood. So it is truly immaterial, no?

 

[MaxManning]

The more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely you are to believe it happened.:thinking:
If indeed there is NOT a test that detects if bleach has been used or not, imagine THAT?!

So brendan lied ? Barb lied ? Bryan lied ?

And because bleach was not explicitly mentioned to bryan, bleach wasn't something that plausibly could have been used ?


I am puzzled by people who seem so adamant that bleach couldn't have been used and are so certain that brendan didn't clean steve's floor that day.

Him doing so, doesn't mean he murdered anyone or even that he cleaned up blood.

But, denying i something that seems rather likely is even plausible, is odd to me.

Why is it easier to accept that Barb is lying. Bryan is lying and Brendan must have lied to his mother ?

 

[MaxManning]

Well, it is quite possible he used bleach to clean the garage, however, the chlorine bleach that stains clothes doesn't get rid of blood. So it is truly immaterial, no?

Why does it matter if chlorine bleach gets rid of blood or not?

It's actually quite common in crimes that people use bleach because they THINK it cleans blood.

Before this crime and people showing me info about it, I thought that as well.

My suggestion is not even that they SUCCESSFULLY cleaned blood. It's that they cleaned steve's garage floor with bleach.

Everyone here seems to think that me stating something that is quite reasonable and supported by several people's statements , is somehow not plausible.

If he's cleaning up transmission fluid. Oil. cat poop.. whatever. Do they evaluate if chlorine bleach cleans up blood ?


Everyone's misconception here is that that me believing what they are saying happened means that teresa's blood was on the floor.

It does not.

What they chose to clean the floor with , matches what happened to brendan's pants. Matches what barb noticed about his pants. matches what brendan said happend to his pants. Matches what bryan said about a the garage being cleaned, minus the mention of bleach.

Yet everyone is seemingly unable to accept this is quite likely really something that occurred. haha

Why ?


edit -- 'everyone' is maybe my distorted perception at the moment -- I'll say that at least 2 people have an issue with believing Barb, Brendan, and Bryan about brendan being a part of cleaning steve's floor that day.

 

[stephsb]

So brendan lied ? Barb lied ? Bryan lied ?

And because bleach was not explicitly mentioned to bryan, bleach wasn't something that plausibly could have been used ?


I am puzzled by people who seem so adamant that bleach couldn't have been used and are so certain that brendan didn't clean steve's floor that day.

Him doing so, doesn't mean he murdered anyone or even that he cleaned up blood.

But, denying i something that seems rather likely is even plausible, is odd to me.

Why is it easier to accept that Barb is lying. Bryan is lying and Brendan must have lied to his mother ?

Wait when did Bryan mention bleach? I read his statement at like 3am last night did I miss something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[popsicle]

Because the blood is only acting as a catalyst, small traces that are invisible to the eye are sufficient to trigger the reaction, so luminol can be used to detect blood spatter and pools even after cleaning. The reaction lasts a relatively short time, producing a glow for around half a minute, and needs low light conditions to pick it up, but it is strong enough to register photographically with a good camera.

A little bit of care has to be taken in certain settings, though, as other iron-based catalysts, such as potassium ferricyanide will also trigger the reaction. What’s more, Luminol will do its trick for some kinds of bleach, some copper compounds, fecal matter and even horseradish. The bleach is often the biggest problem at a crime scene as it may well have been used to clean away the bloodstain, resulting in an even, non-informative patch of glowing material.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/04/luminol-csi-blood-forensic-podcast

 

[MaxManning]

Why not pose the question in a new thread?

I don't even think a new thread is needed. We all know that chlorine bleach doesn't get rid of blood.

There was a luminol hit, so why is anyone surprised if chlorine bleach was used -- if it was oxygenated bleach, there'd be no luminol hit. right ?

I'm kind of confused why people keep pointing out chlorine bleach not cleaning blood, because it truly is irrelevant to cleaning blood.


But it's completely relevant to what brendan told his mother he was doing that day, and why he had bleach on his pants. It's also in no way inconsistent with anything in the garage, as there was a luminol hit, so blood -- whether blood or deer -- was present.

I'm confused by why people are so adamantly opposed to brendan helping clean steve's garage. It doesn't mean he's guilty.

If we are going to throw out what people say because we don't like it, we can probably just stop the thread altogether haha

 

[MaxManning]

Wait when did Bryan mention bleach? I read his statement at like 3am last night did I miss something?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He didn't - he said that brendan was going to help steve clean the garage. My wording was poor.

But again, if he doesn't say bleach was used to clean, does that even matter ? what if he used 401 ? what if he used pine sol ?

I just mentioned bryan , because he is another person who mentions cleaning of steve's garage floor.

I mention bleach because it matches the pants. So why is it unrealistic to assume he used bleach ? i find it funny that people have a problem with that.

If they chose to use oxygenated bleach, wouldn't that indicate they understood more than most of us that it was capable of cleaning blood ???

But that would have been capable of cleaning blood -- which we know was not the case here, whether chlorine bleach was used or not, because there was a luminol hit for blood

haha. This is bizarre why anyone is having trouble getting that the reason they didn't specify the bleach in the trial is because the type was irrelevant. It was assumed that it was chlorine bleach because of brendan's pants.

 

[chaleigh26]

Someone made a humongous post, going on about how they believed bleach was used that night because of bleach stains on Brendan's jeans, and how they believe some family members statements. So if chlorine bleach was used to clean up just grime, then who cares if they cleaned up grime with bleach. Jmo

 

[MaxManning]

I think there is a major misunderstanding by many about the garage floor.

There was a luminol hit on the floor for blood. That is fact. (except to those of you who believe nothing can be trusted)
So there is zero chance that oxygenated bleach was used.
There is no proof that chlorine bleach was used on the floor.
Barb says she questioned brendan about his pants being bleached on that night, he said they got bleached while cleaning steve's floor.
Bryan says Brendan was going to help Steve clean his floor --- didn't say bleach. But if he didn't say what was used, does that mean it was pine sol or 401 or whatever ? was it possibly still bleach ?
Brendan's pants are bleached as his mother said. - we assume that chlorine bleach is what bleached his pants. NOT oxygenated bleach, because that would not stain. So irrelevant to anything i'm saying.

That's all -- i'm amazed that anything above is hard to believe, possible or even likely

 

[MaxManning]

Someone made a humongous post, going on about how they believed bleach was used that night because of bleach stains on Brendan's jeans, and how they believe some family members statements. So if chlorine bleach was used to clean up just grime, then who cares if they cleaned up grime with bleach. Jmo

Exactly - it doesn't matter what was used. I am simply stating it because bleached pants, matches what he told his mother -- NOT POLICE

It's nothing that proves guilt, but why is it so troubling to people if brendan did indeed help clean the floor of steven's garage that day ?

why exactly is that occurrence something no one want's to admit could happen ?

completely puzzling to me.