If you want to argue that the cells were not blood, then you must invoke magic cleaning fluid that can remove or destroy blood cells but not other cells. Or this fluid must have the strange property of not being able to flow into small imperfections along the surface of the knife. Neither one is credible.
But let’s go back to what you originally wrote, “And only if your exceptionally lucky and win the odds the maximum you may expect is 'one' blood cell. Of course you're never going to get a positive with a blood test.” Your argument is that there were at most 10 cells, and only 20% were used in the TMB test. Let’s assume for simplicity that half of the cells were blood and half were not; this would leave us with one cell. Because you were speaking about the number of cells derived from a DNA study, this hypothetical one cell must be a white cell, inasmuch as red blood cells do not contain DNA. Taking LJ’s ratio of 800 red cells per one white cell as a given, this implies 800 red blood cells, not one cell. TMB reacts with hemoglobin in red blood cells. True, you did not use the words “red” or “white,” but if you had, you might have seen your error sooner.
Let’s review your overall scientific record, including the previous thread. You essentially asserted that courts could rule
spectroscopic noise out of existence. I wish I could remove spectroscopic noise from my experiments by decree, but it is not possible. You
wrote, “Hardly. Pathogens 'multiply', DNA does not.” This is patently false with respect to polymerase chain reaction, a key step in forensic DNA analysis. Each cycle of PCR can double the amount of DNA present. Now comes your erroneous blood cell argument. Three strikes and you are out in anyone’s baseball game.
