Home
 Case summary
 Flawed forensics
 Statements to police
 The real Amanda
 Articles and links
 Media kit
 Contact us

Did luminol reveal bloody footprints in the corridor?


luminol footprint
Latent footprint revealed with luminol
No. In testifying at the trial, the prosecution's forensic witnesses could not confirm the presence of blood in any of the stains they detected with luminol. Moreover, DNA tests strongly indicate that none of the bare footprints detected with luminol was made with the victim's blood.

Very probably, the luminol reactions involved a non-blood substance, which might have been deposited weeks before the murder. As explained below, this could have been a household cleaning product, soil, or a number of other substances.

What is luminol?

Luminol is a chemical compound that reacts with blood by producing a blue glow that is visible in a completely dark environment for a few seconds. It is useful as a forensic reagent because it will reveal traces of blood that are invisible to the naked eye.

The catch is that luminol also reacts with many substances other than blood. A scientific article about luminol available here notes that it can react with components found in "soils, detergents, bleaches, carpet, metal objects, tools, plastic panels, wood, and vegetable compounds." The prosecution's key forensic witness told the court she can tell by looking at a luminol reaction whether it involves blood or something else, but she did not perform any scientific tests to validate this claim. The article linked above notes that, because luminol reacts with many non-blood substances that may be present at a crime scene, "the luminol test must not be considered sufficiently specific to permit an unequivocal identification of blood."

DNA test results on the bare footprints

Investigators took swabs of each of the six bare footprints they detected with luminol. These swabs were not tested to confirm the presence of blood, but they were subjected to DNA testing, with the following results:

LOCATION         DNA PROFILE
Amanda's room Amanda
Amanda's room Amanda
Amanda's room Amanda
corridor none
corridor none
corridor none

These results seriously undermine the prosecution's claim that the bare footprints were made by someone who tracked Meredith's blood into the corridor following the murder. In fact:

  • Meredith's DNA was not detected in a single one of the bare footprints revealed with luminol.
  • No test was ever performed to establish that any of these prints were made with blood rather than one of the many other substances that react with luminol.
  • No comparable footprints were found inside the room where Meredith was killed.

What about the other stains revealed with luminol?

Along with the bare footprints, three other luminol reactions were observed at the cottage. Two were stains with no shape description, and one was described as a shoe print. The shapeless stains were in Amanda's room and Filomena's room. All were swabbed and subjected to DNA tests. The stain in Amanda's room showed the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda. The stain in Filomena's room showed the DNA of Meredith with a very faint profile corresponding to Amanda. The shoe print was in the corridor, and it showed the DNA of Meredith and Amanda.

These results are unsurprising for samples taken from the floor of a shared residence where all kinds of residue got tracked around. As with the bare footprints, no other test was performed to determine the presence of blood in any of these stains.