I find the whole argument about the relative sensitivities of luminol and TMB interesting but really not very relavant to the trial itself. Let me explain. I hope we can ALL agree that luminol tests can yield false positive results and TMB can yields false negative results. Coming down hard that a sample, in this case the footprints, contains blood if a luminol test is positive and no other test is performed, seems scientifically foolhearty. If both luminol and TMB tests are positive, most reasonable people would assume that the sample contains blood. Would the 2 tests being positive mean the sample contains blood with 100%]certainty? No, but the chances that it does contain blood are very very high. When a sample tests positive with luminol and negative with TMB one would be scientifically VERY foolhearty to claim the sample contained blood with any degree of certainty. Could it contain blood? Yes but the chances that it does contain blood are significantly less than 50% and if you or someone you loved were on trial for murder my bet is that you would not want the jury to consider the results as presumptive evidence of blood. If I were the judge or the jury in this case, in honestly would consider the claim that the footprints contained blood UNPROVEN.
What should have been done is that Steffanoni should have conducted a set of different tests to clarify the presence or absence of blood. These tests were not done. Why? And, why did Steffanoni, in court try and hide the fact that the TMB tests were even performed?
I will admit the what I am going to say next is biased by my complete disrespect for Steffanoni as a capable scientist and my suspicion that she conducted her work with a prosecution bias. It is pure conjecture, but it seems logical to me. I suspect that after the luminol tests came back positive, Steffanoni was convinced that the footprints contained blood and only did the TMB tests as icing on the cake. When they came back negative, she was probably surprised and afraid to give the prosecution evidence that might not fit their explanation of the case. Additional testing might or might not confirm the presence of blood but she could not risk an overall negative result so she did not do the additional tests. She probalby felt she could bluff her way through the trial by failing to reveal the negative TMB tests but unfortunately for her, the bluff failed and she and her work were exposed.[/B][/B][/B]
What should have been done is that Steffanoni should have conducted a set of different tests to clarify the presence or absence of blood. These tests were not done. Why? And, why did Steffanoni, in court try and hide the fact that the TMB tests were even performed?
I will admit the what I am going to say next is biased by my complete disrespect for Steffanoni as a capable scientist and my suspicion that she conducted her work with a prosecution bias. It is pure conjecture, but it seems logical to me. I suspect that after the luminol tests came back positive, Steffanoni was convinced that the footprints contained blood and only did the TMB tests as icing on the cake. When they came back negative, she was probably surprised and afraid to give the prosecution evidence that might not fit their explanation of the case. Additional testing might or might not confirm the presence of blood but she could not risk an overall negative result so she did not do the additional tests. She probalby felt she could bluff her way through the trial by failing to reveal the negative TMB tests but unfortunately for her, the bluff failed and she and her work were exposed.[/B][/B][/B]
