You are not debating this point with someone (namely me) who says it the luminol test itself cannot be trusted. I never said any of the statements above.
Luminol has it's definite and important uses. An investigator's conclusions about the test results at crime scenes sometimes can and will be challenged in a court of law. This case is most likely not the only case where an investigator's report on the luminol test result interpretations have come under fire and probably won't be the last. This is not to say that anyone questioning the investigator's intepretations of the findings are saying to throw out Luminol testing. That is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.
It is my understanding that footprints were discovered, as any would be in one's own home. It is my understand that a number of things can react with luminol to cause the footprints to be seen, not necessarily blood. It is my understanding that each investigator must test the spots uncovered by luminol to indeed determine what reacted with the luminol to cause the glow. It is my understanding that these footprints, no matter what cause the reaction, it wasn't blood that helped to make them. It is additionally my understanding that when one cleans up, you will see wipe streaks in luminol, not definitive outlines of what was really there. Since there were no wipe up marks, just the prints, that means there was no clean up.
