Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
the sensitivities of tests for blood
This week a new post went up at View from Wilmington that catalogs the sensitivities of some presumptive (luminol and TMB) and confirmatory blood tests. Personally, the notion that the reason every luminol-positive area was TMB-negative is that luminol is supposedly much more sensitive than TMB has always struck me as dubious at best, for reasons laid out in another entry at the same blog.
No: some had mixed DNA; some had no DNA; and the prints in Amanda's room had her DNA. I agree that the prints might be very old, and I agree that the prints don't tell a story that makes sense with respect to the murder. They are all of one chirality, and they don't form a trail.Chris though I mostly defer to you on DNA and luminol, I believe you are not looking at the possibility that it was long ago prints made in extremely diluted blood. The luminol test being much more sensitive than TMB would show such diluted blood but the TMB wouldn't.
The article I quote a time back made the point that blood doesn't go away unless scrubbed with something strong like a detergent. It is possible that someone a year before or longer had something bleeding a bit in the shower and walked bare footed afterwards. The spots can't be dated and don't seem IIRC to fit any pattern that makes sense vis-a-vis the murder.
Did all the prints test positive for Meredith's DNA?
This week a new post went up at View from Wilmington that catalogs the sensitivities of some presumptive (luminol and TMB) and confirmatory blood tests. Personally, the notion that the reason every luminol-positive area was TMB-negative is that luminol is supposedly much more sensitive than TMB has always struck me as dubious at best, for reasons laid out in another entry at the same blog.
Last edited: