1087 users online (187 members and 900 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438

    Bleach: Brendan's pants and the garage floor

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuchess
    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
    Last edited by bessie; 01-11-2016 at 12:33 AM. Reason: removed redirect; quoted post in a different thread

  2. #2
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,274
    Where the bleach bottle was found:

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    259
    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.c...bleaching.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,274
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by chaleigh26 View Post
    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.

    [URL="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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    259
    well they weren't cleaning up TH blood with chlorine bleach.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Pure Michigan
    Posts
    2,208
    The more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely you are to believe it happened.
    If indeed there is NOT a test that detects if bleach has been used or not, imagine THAT?!


    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by dexter75 View Post
    The more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely you are to believe it happened.

    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 ?


    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 ?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,263
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    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 ?


    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?
    Everything I post without a supporting link is always JMO.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by dexter75 View Post
    The more people that make reference to a given occurrence happening, the more likely you are to believe it happened.
    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 ?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDuchess View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    DofC
    Posts
    22,012
    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/20...rensic-podcast
    __________
    “Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet.” - Maya Angelou

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast