Professor James Starrs

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:07 pm

I have an old article from 1992 which says that Professor James Starrs was trying to get permission to open the graves of Abby and Andrew to prove that they were not killed by Lizzie, does anyone know if he was able to do this? and if so what was the outcome? he believed that Abby and Andrew were killed around the same time as each other. He also talks about James Alphonso Frye among others, and there is a picture of him sitting next to Fryes grave with a skull in his hand!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:36 pm

The graves of Andrew and Abby remain undisturbed. I for one am in support of NOT disturbing them. They were not only murdered but robbed of their dignity and privacy as well. The very least that can be done for them is to allow their remains to rest in peace.

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:44 pm

Also, what would it prove? I have a hard time that you can tell wich exact time a 100 yeras old body was killed.

Let them sleep..

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:29 pm

The morbid part of me would like to see the bodies dug up (sorry) especially if (not sure how) it could be proved they were not killed by Lizzie. It says in the James Starrs article that he was about to attend the Centennial Lizzie Borden convention in Fall River, does anyone have any articles about this that they can post? I would be interested to know how far he got in having the graves re-opened? he says that to prove Lizzie didn't do it he would have to re-examine the skeletons-particuarly the skulls (I had always thought that the skulls were never buried with the bodies, is this true?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:45 pm

This appeared in a 1998 article titled Bone Hunter on Prof. Starrs in the Washington City Paper:

"... Six years ago, he abandoned one of his favorite causes after receiving dozens of letters from relatives of the deceased protesting his investigation. Starrs had wanted to look into the notorious Lizzie Borden case and probe the charges that Borden had murdered her parents with a pickax. "The worst part about it," Starrs laments, years later, "was that [the relatives] also said that they liked the mystery—the mystery being that even though she was acquitted, that everybody else thought she was guilty. They liked that. They were happy with that." Starrs says he has no patience for living with mystery, even though his digs usually do little to actually resolve the debate.

One of the descendants who wrote a protest letter is an Alexandria resident named Douglas Borden. Although he refuses to comment, his wife, Joan, remembers Starrs well: "He was extremely accusatory toward Douglas. He thought he was some sort of ringleader or something." Both she and her husband still want nothing to do with Starrs. "Let the dead lie in peace, regardless of who they are. Just let 'em lie," she says. "

The entire article can be found here:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/arch ... r0313.html

The bodies were originally buried without their heads. Andrew's skull, denuded of flesh, was used as an exhibit at the trial. The skulls were later separately buried in their respective graves.

Personally I'm in agreement with Audrey. Excuse the pun, but I am dead set against disturbing the bodies and would join in any effort to prevent it..

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:50 pm

Thanks Harry, That is really interesting, i've just kicked my morbid side out in the street! Although I would be curious to know what people think of the photographs of the victims as they were found, being on show for all to see?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:49 pm

Morbidity aside, I'd be open to the idea of digging up the elder Borden's remains if something viable could be learned by it. The Bordens were murdered and at this point it really doesn't matter by what. The experts of the day claimed it was a hatchet or ax that did the deed. I don't think much new could be learned by viewing whats left of their skeletons, would they still be pretty much intact?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:43 pm

That, I would think, Susan, would depend on the durability/integrity of the caskets and their seals.

donj · Post by **donj** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:06 pm

Please let them live in peace. Besides if the graves were opened and what ever remains were left were examined and it was proven that Lizzie didn't do it what would be have to talk about?

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:09 am

The Borden case is still an open case. There isn't any statute of limitations on murder. But all the people involved are way dead by now, so there would be no real reason to dig them up.

Eventually all bones turn to dust. I would think in their case, the Bordens' skulls had a head start, being destroyed so badly by the killer. Still, I'd think their skulls would still be there - maybe collapsed, but still there. It takes a long time for the skull to decompose.

Professor Starrs went to court to appeal the decision when he got turned down to exhume the bodies. He lost and claimed he would never come back and try it again. He was real upset over it.

I thought I had read that he wanted to experiment with the "hoodoo hatchet" (that is at the FRHS) and the skulls.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:40 pm

I was always hoping he'd get to check out the bones, perhaps to see if there were any defense wounds on the arm. It would also just be interesting to see how those battered pieces of calcium had held up. I confess, I'd like to see Lizzie's skull, to get some idea of what her teeth (if they were still her own) looked like, and to get a look at that massive jaw.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:57 pm

i was at the conference and remember starrs well. he seemed then (as he does now) to be very predatory. he seemed like a man in search of a grant! and he didn't get it. his subsequent "investigations" seem to bear it out. i don't know what could be achieved with an exhumation. don't people remember that the handless hatchet was (at least as i see it) unequivocably rejected as the murder weapon at the trial. and more recent information regarding the gilt residue really seems to rule out that particular weapon.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:08 am

Hi!
Len said he was at the graves when Starrs did his scanning thing.
Could you tell when was that, in relation to the conference?
And did Starrs give a presentation?
Thanks!

I think the problem of the handleless hatchet which surfaced during the trial, was not necessarily that it was not the weapon, but that the prosecution's 2 key witnesses to it's finding were at odds with their stories.
Mullaly claimed he saw Fleet take out a handle from the box which corresponded to the break in the Hatchet handle-stub, and that Fleet put it back. (T631)
Then Fleet was re-called and testified that he didn't see anything like a handle in the box, only a bunch of other tools and iron things. (T635)
This was a bombshell, and a bad showing against the police.
That afternoon they sent officers to #92 Second Street to inquire of Emma if they could come in, but never got in and the handle question was never resolved.
So- they were still running around about that hatchet specifically, even during the early part of the trial.
I don't think we know what shape the HH was in originally, before the ashes got on it. The gilt finding was suppressed- but we don't know if the HH had a tiny bit of gilt left, or how old it was, etc. I don't think we know enough about the HH to rule it out, is all I mean.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:18 pm

I agree with Kat. In fact, Florence Brigham told me she thought that was the hatchet. Bob - I'd like to see Andrew & Abby exhumed, too, and see some modern forensic tests done on them. I don't know if they'd see defensive wounds on Abby. I don't think her arm would have any flesh on it now. But since the weapon was a hatchet, maybe there would be a nick or something on her arm. I think she tried to run away and was trapped there. I can imagine her fighting back. The first blow sorta missed her. And those 'contusions' on her face ... The doctors then pretty much wrote them off as it being her falling on the carpet. Maybe the killer socked her in the face. I guess we won't know on that, tho. Yeah ... Lizzie's massive jaw. Wow. I've read in several places of her going to the dentist. It would be great if we could find out who her dentist was and see if any of her dental records exist.

Are there any autopsy photos of A & A facing front?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:59 pm

I think we found one place where Lizzie was described as having some gold in her mouth before or during the trial- what have you got that says she went to the dentist

Give, give...

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:41 pm

I remember Starrs at the Conference and he did
moderate some discussion groups about forensics.
I believe it was a while after that he was at the graves doing his thing, it was written up in the LBQ
I will look for the article and report back.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:21 am

The reference to Lizzie having gold in her teeth comes from Agnes Demille's book.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:53 pm

i don't have my trial transcript handy but if memory serves, it was attested that the HH was worn with ruts and crevices. there was dirt residue found but no blood and no gilt was mentioned. i think it stayed in evidence because of the blade size. and it was really about the only possible physical evidence that connected someone in the house with the crime. it was a desparate prosecution.
mullally is so interesting! i've often thought of all those policemen, he was the only one who told the truth. his testimony was more than once at odds with the others. and i believe he was the only cop involved who was not promoted after the case.
rather than dig up the bordens i'd like to know what a pathologist makes of the autopsies. with both of the bordens there were at least one "contused" rather than incised wound. i am no expert but i have wondered for a long time if the bordens were first rendered unconscious and then hacked. this might account for the remarked lack of blood.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:56 pm

but the TIME factor? obviously both Mr. and Mrs.
Boren were sane and doing normal things all morning. If they were whacked out on drugs or
arsenic we would have evidince of that? Or maybe
not, the investigation was surely bungled.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:10 pm

Oh I get it! The bruising on Abby could be from being socked and no contusions on Andrew's face (from being socked) could be because his face was so mutilated, nothing could be found?

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:57 pm

If NOTHING else gives you a taste of that time and its, to us, peculiar observances, re-read above where the police go back once more to 92 Second Street, only to be refused entry by Emma Borden.

Can you IMAGINE?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:09 pm

Now there's a thought...two maiden spinsters, one locked up on suspicion of murder, the other jailed on charges of obstructing an official investigatiion!

I love the smell of indignance in the morning!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:13 am

Well...the trial doesn't say if Emma was there....
I was trying to figure this out- if Emma was in court that day in New Bedford- maybe she wasn't back to give them access? I'd think they might corral her in New Bedford to gain approval or denial. I don't even know if Emma was in court that day?
Someone here may know.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:47 am

I don't know if Emma was there or not. Officers Edson and Mahoney were sent and they testified that they went "last night" so she may have been home.

It was Jennings and Mr. Holmes who prevented access to the house by the officers. From the Evening Standard:

"June 10, 1893 Page 3
NOT ALLOWED TO SEARCH.
Lawyer Jennings Prevents Police Entering Borden House.

Fall River, June 10. --- Officer Mullaly testified in the Borden case yesterday that he saw the missing piece of the handle which is in the head of the axe that Assistant Marshal Fleet swore to discovering in the box where the ash-stained instrument lay. Officers were sent to search for it. Last night Hon. Andrew J. Jennings telephoned to the Central station that no one would be allowed in the Borden house. Counsel for Lizzie and Charles J. Holmes arrived at the house from the train and refused to let the detail of two men search. The lawyer and banker made a tour of the cellar, but did not find the missing portion of the helve."

They had 10 months to get rid of it if it ever was there to begin with.

The police seem to be unaware of the use of warrants. Geez.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:27 am

Thanks for the news item!

Edson & Mahoney went to the Borden house at 3:40 p.m., (T 653).
I thought that might be too early for Emma to return if she went to court that day.

This all happened in open court, and Knowlton may have dispatched the officers immediately, but otherwise 4 more witnesses testified after the plea of Knowlton, and the court adjourned at 3:40. These testimonies were not lengthy:
Annie White, Pettee, Gorman and then Mrs. Churchill was re-called. Then the court broke until Saturday- so I think this was Friday, June 9th.
The officers may have left New Bedford at 3:40 but Edson's testimony is:
Q. Mr. Edson, did you go last night to the house that was occupied in his lifetime by Andrew J. Borden?
A. Yesterday afternoon, sir.

Q. About what time?
A. Twenty minutes of four.

Q. And in consequence of some instructions?
A. Yes, sir.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:55 pm

yes, kat, you got it. i believe in andrew's autopsy report there is also a contusion.
i have to admit....i have never bought the idea that andrew was asleep when attacked.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:28 pm

Andrew: "...one contused wound penetrating into the brain."

What does this sound like-- can anyone describe this wound?

Why punch someone if you have a weapon in your hand? Or maybe they were struck with the *blunt" end of a hatchet first? Why would they do that, do you think?

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:39 pm

It sounds like there was a bruise around this particular wound, maybe the hatchet hit sideways as it went it causing the bruise? Or, could it be that the blunt end of the hatchet was used first to render Andrew unconcious and was struck afterwards with the blade end in that area?

Bruising doesn't occur after death, so, Andrew was still alive when he received that blow to the head. I guess the exception would be post-mortem lividity.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:25 pm

thanks for checking the exact reference. i believe abby's was a semicircular contusion. sound like the blunt end of a hatchet to you?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:21 am

I don't know. I have wondered what made those bruises.
I have given the example of my best guess as to what they looked like and were located on Abby's face.
I will put that here again.

(I would think that she hit her face on something on the way to the floor. There was a camp chair there at the head of the bed. But I suppose she could have been hit by a hatchet handle in the face...) But why?

please click on picture if you need to make it bigger

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:41 pm

thanks, kat. why? well, it certainly would mean no yelling out, now wouldn't it?
i don't really have a theory about the who but, from the time several years ago i saw the photographs of the body of andrew and read the autopsy reports, i have thought that they were rendered unconscious before being killed. i don't think andrew was asleep...between the clenched fists and the awkward position, it is just not reasonable that he was asleep!!!!!
it was remarked by several of the experts that there was an unusual LACK of blood at both scenes and both being deeply unconscious could account for that. i am not a medical expert so i might be incorrect, but it really bothers me that that avenue was not explored ........though of course they may have thought the bordens are no less dead, and we have a lot more common knowledge today.
it was only remarked in passing how there was no blood trail, not a drop anywhere in the house besides that found immediately by the bodies. oh so many things that are interesting. back to starrs, it really bugged meat the conference in fall river that he was much more interested in talking about digging up the bodies (sensational?????publicity grabbing????) rather than applying his knowledge to the interpretation of the information that we DO have that might have been misunderstood at the time.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:45 pm

ps. i believe that one contused wound is described as oval shaped. this sounds like the non-business end of a hatchet to me! and if one assumes the same weapon was used in both murders i think your photograph illustration is pretty good!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:46 pm

Thats interesting reading Dr. Dolan's testimony there on the wounds on Abby's face vs. the autopsy report. According to Dolan there should be 4 bruises on Abby's face:

Q. Any wounds on the face?
A. On the bridge of the nose there was, what we call a contusion, that is, a black mark, and two over the right eye, and one a little to the left of the left eye---I forget which---the left eye I think they were over.

One of the bruises I can see happening from Abby falling, but three seems a bit much. I would think there might be another bruise on one of her brow bones from when her face hit the floor. But two parallel bruises over her right eye? Hmmm. I keep getthing grisly images of the hatchet getting stuck in the wounds and pulling Abby's head up as the killer tried to free it and when released it kept thumping down on her forhead.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:07 am

The fourth wound accounted for here is the scalp "flap wound." 2 of the other 3 are over the left brow and oval, and lengthwise with body.
The one between her eyebrows doesn't designate which direction it took- thus the yellow overlap going horizobntal with her body and a yellow question mark.

Somehow I can see a scream more likely with the hit in the face from a hatchet handle. It was the first thing I thought of when it was mentioned Abby may have been hit first.

Anyway, if she was hit first we have to account for the hatchet scalp wound which caused that flap.
Abby would be hit while facing her attacker. She might have fallen flat back on her back on the floor, then the scalp wound, but then she turned over to receive the other head wounds- so either she wasn't unconscious yet or she was turned over before the final blast of 18 cuts to her head.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:09 pm

Could any of Abby's facial wounds come from something besides a murderous attack ? For instance could she have bumped her head on a cabinet door that day by chance...or something of that nature ? Afterall, she had been very pukey in the past 24 hours...maybe she was a bit dehydrated and not so steady on her feet ?

Tracy...

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:21 pm

The fourth wound accounted for here is the scalp "flap wound." 2 of the other 3 are over the left brow and oval, and lengthwise with body.

Thats why I found it interesting, from the way it is worded, Dolan sounds like all he is talking about is bruises on Abby's face, not the flap wound. From the actual autopsy we know otherwise about the bruising.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:40 pm

The marks could be lividity I suppose- she supposedly was first found with her face smack down straight into the carpet. It was later that it was noted that her face was a bit to the right.

I am open to the bruising coming from a smack in the face with the hatchet handle- maybe they struggled- but we still will have to account for nothing disturbed, no defense wounds that we know of and the position in which her body was found. It's very complicated to add a struggle or to add a few smacks first-what about the noise that would make? What about the sequence of wounds? What about a scream or a groan or an "Umph!"

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:08 am

I found a site on post-mortem lividity, from what they say, areas of skin that are compressed against a surface will be pale or show "contact pallor". It sounds like the areas around these pressure points might show the darkening of lividity:

Pressure of even a mild degree is sufficient to prevent gravitational filling of the vessels and this is so in the compressed areas of skin in contact with the underlying supporting surface. The result is that these compressed areas of "contact flattening" also show "contact pallor" (or "pressure pallor"). A supine corpse will display contact pallor over the shoulderblades, buttocks, calves and heels. Other areas of contact pallor will correspond with the location of firm fitting clothing, e.g. elasticated underwear, belts and collars, and any firm object lying beneath the body, e.g. the arm of the decedent. Thus, the distribution of lividity depends upon the position of the body after death.

Lividity is usually well marked in the earlobes and in the fingernail beds. In a supine corpse there may be isolated areas of lividity over the front and sides of the neck resulting from incomplete emptying of superficial veins. If the head is slightly flexed on the neck, then lividity may have a linear distribution corresponding to the skin folds. (Ref. 19 at p. 36). Isolated patches of hypostasis may be due to blood in the deeper veins being squeezed, against gravity, to the skin surface by the action of muscles developing rigor mortis (Ref. 6 at p. 83). Differentiation of lividity from bruising can be made by incising the skin. In areas of lividity the blood is confined to the dilated blood vessels whilst, in areas of bruising, the blood infiltrates the tissues and cannot be readily washed away under running tap water. Microscopic examination will resolve any doubts and provide a permanent record.

From this site: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicin ... edeath.htm

Abby's head looks like it was slightly flexed on her neck, but, no note of any discoloration there? Perhaps it is just bruising afterall?

The "bruises" sound very narrow, 3/8th of an inch wide and the other a 1/4 inch wide. They give me the idea that Abby hit her head on the edge of something like the side of the bedstead or the edge of the seat of the camp chair.

SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width.

THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide.

Me personally, I'm a screamer when it comes to things that frighten me. But, I've had moments where I was so terrified and stunned that nothing came out though my impulse was to scream. Could Abby have been that stunned by what was about to happen or happening? Didn't have enough time to recover herself to scream or cry out before being rendered unconcious or dead?

I was playing around with the pic of Abby's face and bruising, wish I could add color to black and white pics, it won't take. Heres the results of my playing.

william · Post by **william** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:08 am

I find a simple explanation to be the most logical one: Abby was attacked while she was kneeling next to the bed. She fell forward, striking her face on the floor which produced the contusions

It could have happened that way.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:06 pm

Between the eyes bruising, at that hollow part of the forehead is the bruise which stymies me.
I can only see that made by something against the face which got into that hollow. The flat carpet can't do that, I don't think.
I thought of something circular that had depth like a rung at the bottom of a chair, or a curved handle of some kind...

.

Thanks Susan. Since we don't know if the contusions were cut open and examined, I guess they could be the by-product of lividity in the area next to it. (That's what I meant originally- so thanks for making the info more clear).

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:21 pm

So if James Starrs had got his way and the Bodies/Skulls were dug up and were in good condition could we with CT scan etc find out more if they were hit in the face before being hacked in the back of the head? or would this not be possible?

william · Post by **william** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:33 am

When I was a child I was rocking back and forth on a stool in the kitchen.
The stool fell over and I struck the upper part of my forehead on the edge of the gas stove. My entire face became black and blue.

(I know, I know. I'm always relating my life-experiences to make a point. That's what happens when you become old).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:43 pm

I can't think of a reason to dig up the bodies.

I can think of a reason to test the blood, tho.

However, using Luminol is dangerous to the evidence because it degrades the DNA.

Hey William, I got kicked in the temple when I was 10- maybe we should take a poll of Lizzie buffs to see if we all got knocked in the head at some point?

william · Post by **william** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:07 am

Doesn't blood degrade after a period of fifty years or so, making the results of a Luminol test questionable?

It is my understanding that bleach and other substances may be mistaken for blood when tested with Luminol.

william · Post by **william** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:14 am

Kat,

Are you suggesting that all Bordenians are suffering some form of a common dementia because they received a knock on the head at at some point in their lives?

Surely you jest!

... then again . . .

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:30 am

"It is my understanding that bleach and other substances may be mistaken for blood when tested with Luminol."

That's been my understanding as well. I've been looking the past moment or so for information on what substances might (or in fact do) cause false positive Luminol hits.

The first thing I came across was this, apparently from an opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas:

Tytus Antwion HOUSTON v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 95-158 ___ S.W.2d ___

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered September 25, 1995

1. Criminal law -- evidence -- admissibility of luminol tests generally. -- Luminol test results indicating the presence of blood are inadmissible without follow-up tests confirming the presence of human blood related to the crime; because luminol testing can return false positive results by reacting with substances other than human blood, and because luminol testing is not time-specific, luminol test results are not relevant per se and their admission without additional factors that relate that evidence to the crime would confuse a jury.

2. Criminal law -- admission of novel scientific evidence -- process trial court must follow in the admission of. -- In announcing the rules on the admissibility of positive luminol test results, the court applied the relevancy approach to the admission of novel scientific evidence enunciated in Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 820 S.W.2d 429 (1991); under that approach, the trial court must conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the reliability of the novel process used to generate the evidence, the possibility of confusing or misleading the jury if the evidence is admitted, and the connection between the proffered evidence and the disputedfactual issues in the particular case.

3. Criminal law -- relevancy approach to the admission of novel scientific evidence -- proponent of the evidence carries the burden of proof. -- Reliability is the critical element in the relevancy approach to admissibility of novel scientific evidence and the proponent of the novel scientific evidence is the party who carries the burden of proof on the reliability issue.

4. Criminal law -- luminol test results not allowed at trial -- no abuse of discretion found. -- Where there was no evidence of the reliability of the luminol test for proving the absence of human blood; as the proponent of the negative luminol test results, appellant bore the burden of demonstrating the reliability of the luminol test for showing the absence of human blood, and it was clear from the record that appellant failed to carry that burden since the investigator could not testify to the accuracy of luminol tests for proving the absence of human blood; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admission of the negative luminol test results.
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/old/CR95-158A.html
------------------
Well, I thought it was interesting, at least!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:09 am

Thanks, it was worth reading.
I hadn't thought about it's use to prove an area negative for blood. That's a whole 'nother ball game.

william · Post by **william** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:48 am

Based upon the information posted in this Forum, it would appear that Luminol testing should be relegated to the same obscurity enjoyed by lie detection procedures. Neither seems to have universal legal cachet.

Just props for CSI?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:15 am

I think what it boils down to in the end where Luminol is concerned is that it can be a starting point, but is most definitely not in and of itself a "be all, end all".

We can say "Oh goody, Luminol shows..." but we had better be prepared to back up those results with further testing.

william · Post by **william** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:51 am

Let me put it this way: If I were falsely accused of a serious crime, and my innocence or guilt was to be determined by the findings of a Luminol and/or polygraph test . . . well, I'd be a pretty nervous guy!

Hey! Guess what ? My messages now add up to one per cent of the total (better watch out Kat; here I come)!