BlueStar vs. Luminol and The True Detectability of Blood on Surfaces
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Hendricks, Amber L.
Issue Date
2017
Type
Capstone
Language
en
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
Often times after a perpetrator has committed a crime, he or she will usually try to cover their tracks, destroy evidence or clean up after themselves to prevent evidence from being recovered. Any potential evidence that is recovered could link the culprit to the crime and assist in their prosecution and very often, these perpetrators do not want to be caught. If a criminal were trying to cover up a crime, how effective is Luminol? How effective is BlueStar? Are they equally as effective or is one more effective than the other? If a criminal were in fact careful enough and had enough time to attempt to clean up or cover up blood, would Luminol or BlueStar still be able to detect that there was once blood there?
Both Luminol and BlueStar are generally used by forensic investigation teams to detect the presence of blood that is not visible to the naked eye. The products can be used after a potential clean up and is said to be able to detect blood even some years after the surface has been “cleaned”. Through hands on research, the goal of the project is to determine if in fact these two detecting agents are not only effective but equally as effective on different surfaces both porous and non-porous. Could a criminal, in fact cover their tracks by making blood at a crime scene invisible not only to the naked eye, but to Luminol and BlueStar testing as well?