Interesting find with luminol testing

Recently, while processing a case from 2022, I discovered a unique reaction with luminol that revealed a hidden blood spatter pattern. It was a great reminder of how critical proper chain of custody is, as the quality of the evidence obtained relies heavily on meticulous handling and documentation. Anyone else experienced unexpected results with forensic testing?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍​‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌‍​⁠‌‍‍​‌‍⁠‍‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍​‌​​‍‌⁠‌‍‌‍‌‌‌​‍‍​⁠‌⁠‌​‌​‌⁠​‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‍⁠⁠‌‌‍‍‌​‌‍‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠‌​‍​‌‌‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

It’s wild how luminol can act like a bloodhound at times, revealing what we didn’t even know was there; i had a case where it lit up an entire area we thought was clean. Have you seen any other surprising reactions with different reagents?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍​‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌‍​⁠‌‍‍​‌‍⁠‍‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‍​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‌‍​⁠‌‍‌‌​⁠​⁠‌​‌⁠‌​‌‍‍⁠‌‍​‍‌⁠‌​​⁠‌​‌⁠‌‍‌‌‍‌‌‌‍​‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‍‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

I’ve had similar surprises with luminol as well, especially when it highlighted areas we thought were non-conclusive. It’s crucial to document every step, since any inconsistencies can cast doubt on the evidence, like you mentioned about the chain of custody. Have you ever had to retest samples due to unexpected findings?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍​‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌‍​⁠‌‍‍​‌‍⁠‍‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‍​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‌‌‌‍​‌‍‌‍‌⁠‍‌​⁠‌​‌​⁠‍‌​​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍​‌‍‍‌‌​‌​​⁠‍‌​⁠‍​‌⁠​‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​