Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 86

Thread: Luminol Evidence

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    86

    Luminol Evidence

    I was looking thru the case information on the West Memphis Three a few weeks ago and came across the luminol photos that were used in their case.

    Were they any pictures submitted into evidence of the luminol testing? They weren't included MTJD, so I'm curious if there was photographic evidence taken or did they just rely on the word of whomever conducted the tests to testify.

    Quite a big blunder I have to say if that didn't record the evidence with a picture.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Desilu
    I was looking thru the case information on the West Memphis Three a few weeks ago and came across the luminol photos that were used in their case.

    Were they any pictures submitted into evidence of the luminol testing? They weren't included MTJD, so I'm curious if there was photographic evidence taken or did they just rely on the word of whomever conducted the tests to testify.

    Quite a big blunder I have to say if that didn't record the evidence with a picture.
    There were over 900 photos at the trial. Don't now if there were all submitted into evidence or not, but they definitely are not all in MTJD.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Desilu
    I was looking thru the case information on the West Memphis Three a few weeks ago and came across the luminol photos that were used in their case.

    Were they any pictures submitted into evidence of the luminol testing? They weren't included MTJD, so I'm curious if there was photographic evidence taken or did they just rely on the word of whomever conducted the tests to testify.

    Quite a big blunder I have to say if that didn't record the evidence with a picture.
    I believe there was testimony to the fact that pictures were taken of the Luminol tests. As Goody said, there were nearly 1,000 photo exhibits. I am not surprised Chris did not include any. They show a clean up and he doesn't want the people who only read his book to know about that. Darlile has tried to explain the washed away blood on the kitchen counter and in the sink as her preparing chicken for supper that night. So even they don't dispute that some cleaned up blood was found. They just don't want people to know how MUCH there was.
    As for the bloody hand print and "butt print" of Damon's on the sofa, Luminol destroys visible blood. LE did not realize it was there because it was under a blanket or pillow, and the room was dark. So when they sprayed the Luminol, the prints were only visible for a short time, then they dripped away.
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by beesy
    So when they sprayed the Luminol, the prints were only visible for a short time, then they dripped away.
    I would have thought they would have even captured the dripping of the glowing Luminol as that is telling no matter if it was in the shape of a hand print or not.

    And yes I'm aware MTJD didn't include all the photos. I don't recall testimony of the Luminol photographs, I will have to go back and search a little.

    Thanks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Desilu
    I would have thought they would have even captured the dripping of the glowing Luminol as that is telling no matter if it was in the shape of a hand print or not.

    And yes I'm aware MTJD didn't include all the photos. I don't recall testimony of the Luminol photographs, I will have to go back and search a little.

    Thanks.
    It dripped too quickly. I think they were so horrified by it that they just looked at it for a few seconds. They probably did take photos of that area. Here's a start:

    Read Linch's testimony on Luminol results of the wipe patterns and the blood washed down the sink..

    http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tra...es/vol-37.php#1
    Last edited by beesy; 06-21-2006 at 02:40 PM.
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    86
    Thank you ma'am!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Desilu
    Thank you ma'am!
    cami found it and posted the link on another thread. I just checked to make sure that was where the Luminol testimony was and posted cami's link. If you don't get your answers, he names the other people who were there with him so you could look up their testimonies too.
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    19
    Hello!
    First let me say this is such an awesome forum and site. I hope not to sound too stupid my first post on here!
    Very interesting posts! It has been my experience that Luminol will fluores blood spatter and imprints for more than just one test (especially porous surfaces). We have used luminol on stains that were at least 2 years old and had been previously tested with positive results. I am still very confused about this dripping as well. If we are talking about a bloody "butt print" on a flat surface, one application of luminol SHOULD NOT destroy all traces of ?blood? if that is indeed what made the luminol react. A repeat application should still yield results especially if the first application was clear enough to produce a butt outline. As far as the drain goes, The piping can be dismantled and samples can be taken from inside the pipe, particularly at the first curve where liquid can pool. We must remember that luminol reacts to many different chemicals. It is in NO WAY a determinate of blood. Swabs should have been collected and tested for blood and typed.

    Just my opinion!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    27,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Hello!
    First let me say this is such an awesome forum and site. I hope not to sound too stupid my first post on here!
    Very interesting posts! It has been my experience that Luminol will fluores blood spatter and imprints for more than just one test (especially porous surfaces). We have used luminol on stains that were at least 2 years old and had been previously tested with positive results. I am still very confused about this dripping as well. If we are talking about a bloody "butt print" on a flat surface, one application of luminol SHOULD NOT destroy all traces of ?blood? if that is indeed what made the luminol react. A repeat application should still yield results especially if the first application was clear enough to produce a butt outline. As far as the drain goes, The piping can be dismantled and samples can be taken from inside the pipe, particularly at the first curve where liquid can pool. We must remember that luminol reacts to many different chemicals. It is in NO WAY a determinate of blood. Swabs should have been collected and tested for blood and typed.

    Just my opinion!
    Hi and welcome! I may be mistaken, but from what I understand, it wasn't a flat surface, so when they sprayed it on the fake leather couch, it just sort of rolled down the side of the couch. I know very little about the process. Perhaps they sprayed too much? But, its my opinion since Darlie says the boy was there standing next to the couch talking to her, its not out of the realm of possibility that the print was there.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Very interesting posts! It has been my experience that Luminol will fluores blood spatter and imprints for more than just one test (especially porous surfaces). We have used luminol on stains that were at least 2 years old and had been previously tested with positive results
    You're right, blood in any amount or shape or pattern cannot hide from Luminol. Latent blood can be sprayed repeatedly and will still show up in the same pattern through Luminol.
    I am still very confused about this dripping as well. If we are talking about a bloody "butt print" on a flat surface, one application of luminol SHOULD NOT destroy all traces of ?blood? if that is indeed what made the luminol react. A repeat application should still yield results especially if the first application was clear enough to produce a butt outline.
    Who said it was clear? IF blood is VISIBLE to the naked eye, which the hand and buttprint were, it will damage the shape, print or whatever. Visible blood would no longer remain in the shape of a hand, etc. Yes, of course Luminol would still show the blood that remained, but it would not be in the shape they saw. This is for VISIBLE blood, not LATENT. Jeana mentions that the pleather quality of the sofa mixing with the Luminol did not allow it to "hold" the print. And as she said, this is really just an interesting aside because Darlie puts Damon near the sofa in her stories.
    One problem with luminol is that the chemical reaction can destroy other evidence in the crime scene. For this reason, investigators only use luminol after exploring a lot of other options. It is definitely a valuable tool for police work, but it's not quite as prevalent in crime investigation as presented on some TV shows. The police don't walk into a crime scene and start spraying luminol on every visible surface
    .

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol3.htm
    As far as the drain goes, The piping can be dismantled and samples can be taken from inside the pipe, particularly at the first curve where liquid can pool. We must remember that luminol reacts to many different chemicals. It is in NO WAY a determinate of blood. Swabs should have been collected and tested for blood and typed.

    Yes, of course blood was collected, areas swabbed and tested for typing. The reason Luminol is sprayed in a crime scene is to look for latent blood, not blood they can see. Latent blood cannot be tested, but when you see it glowing where it shouldn't be, you have an idea as to where to look HARDER.
    Yes, all of that was done. P-traps, pipes, even the sewer lines were checked. There was some of Devon and Darlie's blood in the P-traps. If you read Linch's testimony you'll see he explains how when Luminol reacts to other things such as detergents, the glow is a different color. http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tra...es/vol-37.php#1
    Desilu asked a specific question about Luminol, which is why I focused only on that.
    Last edited by beesy; 06-21-2006 at 11:43 PM.
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826

    Flesh and Blood

    Here is writer Patricia Springer's account of the hand print on the sofa:
    Nabors moved to the opposite end of the sofa, spraying its arm and down the front. In moments, Nabors gasped..............as a single, small hand print appeared on the sofa arm. As the remainder of the Luminol developed, blood smears could be detected on the front of the couch.
    "Looks like the little boy fell against the sofa. You can see his butt print right there. He may have gotten up......but he slid back down the front of the sofa......"
    Because of the slick surface of the sofa and the liquid properties of the Luminol............the officers watched as the tiny hand print faded into nonexistence.

    Patricia Springer, Flesh and Blood, page 104
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    86
    I haven't had a chance to read up yet, I will have to do tonight when I get home. I would be most curious to see the photos of the 'cleanup' area on the counters and floor and such. The West Memphis case has such a comprehensive site for all the evidence, I've never seen one quite like it and now I'm all spoiled with having any information at the tip of my fingers!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Desilu
    I haven't had a chance to read up yet, I will have to do tonight when I get home. I would be most curious to see the photos of the 'cleanup' area on the counters and floor and such. The West Memphis case has such a comprehensive site for all the evidence, I've never seen one quite like it and now I'm all spoiled with having any information at the tip of my fingers!
    Yes, there's a Columbine site and a Mac site like that too. It's amazing the dedication these people have. As for the Darlie sites, remember who runs them? Pro-Darlies!
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
    Hi and welcome! I may be mistaken, but from what I understand, it wasn't a flat surface, so when they sprayed it on the fake leather couch, it just sort of rolled down the side of the couch. I know very little about the process. Perhaps they sprayed too much? But, its my opinion since Darlie says the boy was there standing next to the couch talking to her, its not out of the realm of possibility that the print was there.
    I do believe it is possible that the handprint was there. I am just frustrated that if you go into a crime scene spraying luminol that you don't have your camera trained on the areas you are spraying. That is pretty standard. So it is frustration that there doesn't seem to be any better documentation to this handprint or buttprint.

    Being shocked and awed just doesn't cut it when getting a positive result like that, to not be prepared to photograph document it. If you are bringing in luminol to cover a scene you are looking for something. (The bottle insert even has directions on the best film speed and settings for your camera). And it usually comes in the form of spatter, clean up, drag marks, and handprints.

    Beesy has my interests perked back up in this case. I will have to spy ebay for a copy of this Flesh and Blood book.
    Has anyone seen any luminol photos from this scene? Are there any at all? Please let me know! Or if there is a link maybe?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    19
    .
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol3.htm
    Nice link!

    If you read Linch's testimony you'll see he explains how when Luminol reacts to other things such as detergents, the glow is a different color. http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tra...es/vol-37.php#1
    Desilu asked a specific question about Luminol, which is why I focused only on that.[/QUOTE]I am not able to find any mention of luminol changing colors in this testimony.
    Would you be willing to copy paste that as I can't find it or pull it up?

    I have not heard of luminol that glows a different Color. I have only seen and worked with Luminol that are dyed different colors. But none that actually changes colors. I would love that link or info...You learn something everyday!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    Being shocked and awed just doesn't cut it when getting a positive result like that, to not be prepared to photograph document it. If you are bringing in luminol to cover a scene you are looking for something. (The bottle insert even has directions on the best film speed and settings for your camera). And it usually comes in the form of spatter, clean up, drag marks, and handprints
    I think you are taking what said about them, standing there horrified for a bit too seriously. They had cameras right there. The print faded nearly immediately. The smears on the front of the sofa did not disappear completely. They got that, but missed the print. The people working the scene were experts and know how to work a camera. They would have seen the smears and print a little bit with the naked eye, but it was under something, a blanket I think. Basically they made the mistake of not moving the blanket or pillow to check for visible blood. As I and others said, Darlie, in every single one of her what 16 stories, includes Damon waking her up. So she ALWAYS places him near or even touching the sofa. She must have known she didn't clean that part of the sofa, didn't have time maybe. And because Damon being at the sofa is never left out, I believe the print was there. I've never seen any Luminol photos. The two main sites are run by Darlie fans and they wouldn't put anything like on those sites. I know the photos are out there though, buried within nearly 1,000 others.
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    .
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol3.htm
    Nice link!

    If you read Linch's testimony you'll see he explains how when Luminol reacts to other things such as detergents, the glow is a different color. http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tra...es/vol-37.php#1
    Desilu asked a specific question about Luminol, which is why I focused only on that.
    I am not able to find any mention of luminol changing colors in this testimony.
    Would you be willing to copy paste that as I can't find it or pull it up?

    I have not heard of luminol that glows a different Color. I have only seen and worked with Luminol that are dyed different colors. But none that actually changes colors. I would love that link or info...You learn something everyday![/QUOTE]
    24 If the blood is fresh, it will react
    25 very quickly and a very bright blue-green. If the blood
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    2798

    1 is old, you will get kind of a dull, light-green color to
    2 the reaction.
    3 And some of the false/positive
    4 materials will give the dull, slower, green reaction.


    http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tran...s/vol-37.php#1
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    19
    Beesy,
    Thank you for your information on the Luminol results. It sounds like maybe they used green luminol??? Faint, bright, it was still green. I thought you were saying the luminol changed colors. I got off point with that. Thank you for clarifiying and finding the text.
    Mary
    Last edited by Maryliz30; 06-23-2006 at 02:26 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    19

    trying to clarify myself...

    Quote Originally Posted by beesy
    They got that, but missed the print. The people working the scene were experts and know how to work a camera. They would have seen the smears and print a little bit with the naked eye, but it was under something, a blanket I think. Basically they made the mistake of not moving the blanket or pillow to check for visible blood.
    I never disputed whether or not they were experts. I never said they didn't know how to operate a camera.... I feel like you're getting a bit hostile toward me? or I may be hyper-sensitive, either way it is no attack on you, Beesy.

    I understand the scene was processed originally in 1996, maybe they didn't have knowledge of some other tricks to document the luminol reaction.... I don't know why they couldn't/didn't document those prints with Luminol. I just know it can be done and was frustrated it wasn't. Now with this supposed "new evidence", missing stuff like this opens doors for the "prodarlie's".

    Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink. Okay, lots of folks were going through the crime scene. Even the neighbor (Neal) was inside the scene getting the dog off Officer Wyman who was trying walk through the house. That doesn't look too good either. Chances are that "mystery print" belonged to someone being called to the scene that night after the murders. But this further undermines the integrity of the scene.

    http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...routier/6.html

    As far as Darlie's bruising on her arms, I have always felt dear hubby had a part in this. From trying to hire someone to burglarize his house, to covering up after the fact for Darlie. I don't think he knew she was going to kill the boys though. My theory is he walked in on her cutting herself and he grabbed her and shook her a bit.
    But this is just my opinion.
    Mary

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Beesy has my interests perked back up in this case. I will have to spy ebay for a copy of this Flesh and Blood book
    http://product.ebay.com/Flesh-and-Bl...8QQsoprZ921325

    http://product.ebay.com/Precious-Ang...8QQsoprZ788631
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    553

    Maryliz

    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Okay, lots of folks were going through the crime scene. Even the neighbor (Neal) was inside the scene getting the dog off Officer Wyman who was trying walk through the house. That doesn't look too good either. Mary
    Just wanted to point out that Karen Neal didn't enter the family room, i.e, the crime scene. She was allowed to go up the steps, which were right inside the front door, to retrieve the dog. A police officer watched her get the dog and immediately ushered her out of the house.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Desilu
    Thank you ma'am!
    Luminol only exposes blood that has been wiped away. If the blood is on the surface, luminol melts it away which is what happened to the handprint on the sofa. There was another on the carpet though and that was preserved, proven to be Damon's. The other was probably hism too, since there is no evidence that Devon was ever anywhere but where he lay on the floor.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Hello!
    First let me say this is such an awesome forum and site. I hope not to sound too stupid my first post on here!
    Very interesting posts! It has been my experience that Luminol will fluores blood spatter and imprints for more than just one test (especially porous surfaces). We have used luminol on stains that were at least 2 years old and had been previously tested with positive results. I am still very confused about this dripping as well. If we are talking about a bloody "butt print" on a flat surface, one application of luminol SHOULD NOT destroy all traces of ?blood? if that is indeed what made the luminol react. A repeat application should still yield results especially if the first application was clear enough to produce a butt outline. As far as the drain goes, The piping can be dismantled and samples can be taken from inside the pipe, particularly at the first curve where liquid can pool. We must remember that luminol reacts to many different chemicals. It is in NO WAY a determinate of blood. Swabs should have been collected and tested for blood and typed.

    Just my opinion!
    It is my understanding that the butt print was pressed up against the side of the vinyl couch and the handprint on the cushion area. Also note that the vinyl couch was green making the blood a little more difficult to see.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    I never disputed whether or not they were experts. I never said they didn't know how to operate a camera.... I feel like you're getting a bit hostile toward me? or I may be hyper-sensitive, either way it is no attack on you, Beesy.

    I understand the scene was processed originally in 1996, maybe they didn't have knowledge of some other tricks to document the luminol reaction.... I don't know why they couldn't/didn't document those prints with Luminol. I just know it can be done and was frustrated it wasn't. Now with this supposed "new evidence", missing stuff like this opens doors for the "prodarlie's".
    The police mde mistakes. They made no record of which pics were taken first or in what order/ There was no crime scene photographer, just one of the cops and I am not even sure he had ever had to do it before. It made things more difficult later on but didn't blow the case out of the water. As for the luminol problem, I thinkthe cops who did that were not that experienced with the process either/

    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink.
    Haven't heard about this one/ Tell us more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Okay, lots of folks were going through the crime scene. Even the neighbor (Neal) was inside the scene getting the dog off Officer Wyman who was trying walk through the house. That doesn't look too good either. Chances are that "mystery print" belonged to someone being called to the scene that night after the murders. But this further undermines the integrity of the scene.

    http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...routier/6.html

    As far as Darlie's bruising on her arms, I have always felt dear hubby had a part in this. From trying to hire someone to burglarize his house, to covering up after the fact for Darlie. I don't think he knew she was going to kill the boys though. My theory is he walked in on her cutting herself and he grabbed her and shook her a bit.
    But this is just my opinion.
    Mary
    It would have taken a whole lot of shaking to make those bruises/ Let;s face it, the bruises don't fit. Not with what we know about what happened. They don't even fit with her story. What killer is going to stand over someone pounding on the upper arms and nowhere else on the body. Even if she was shielding her face, the guy was supposedly wiedling a knife. So why isn't he stabbing? What is he doing? Hitting her with the knife handle? That can't be. A knife handle would produce patterns that aren't that. It would not be blunt force trauma. The bruises almost have to be staged.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    19
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maryliz30
    Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink.

    Haven't heard about this one/ Tell us more.


    I found that info on crimelibrary. I am not sure of its accuracy... I was wrong when I said next to the sink though, the article says the print was found on the counter.

    http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...outier/20.html

    Barbara Davis, who wrote Precious Angels, and who once believed in Darlie's guilt, has changed her mind since reviewing these latest developments as well as the discovery that there was a latent, bloody fingerprint found on the Routier kitchen counter. According to two New York City police fingerprint experts, the print did not match Darlie nor Darin ...

    you skip a paragraph then

    In early June of 2002, Dr. Richard Jantz, a fingerprint expert, indicated that the unidentified bloody fingerprint left at the crime scene is "consistent with an adult" rather than a child.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •