Forensics, Photoshop & Loose Ends: The Unresolved Murdaugh Evidence Battle

I explained it before but will do a quick re-fresher here and pray to God that some people, specially lawyers and judges, begin to understand REAL science or at least give more than lip service to its importance.
Mature human red blood cells are non-nucleated.
Avian red blood cells are nucleated.
A hemoglobin unit consists of four spiral-like peptide chains which carry a heme molecule which carries an iron atom.
It is the iron atom which takes the oxygen up, carries it, and releases it, by changing from a ferric atom to a ferrous atom and vice versa.
The Leuco Crystal Violet (“LCV”) test takes advantage of the heme molecule’s ability to release oxygen, that is “oxidize” the LCV molecule and turn it from colorless to violet. Since basically all vertebrate species’ blood have the same iron atom on the heme molecule, the PRELIMINARY LCV test will turn violet with ANY vertebrate blood. And if left too long in the light, a specimen with or without blood on it but treated with LCV will also turn violet by having been oxidized by the oxygen in the air.
The HemaTrace reacts with the peptide chain of the hemoglobin molecule with is more specific to higher primates and humans, although it also cross-reacts with the blood of ferrets and weasels.
Because all vertebrate blood also has white blood cells which are nucleated, it is possible to DNA test a specimen which tested positive for vertebrate blood by LCV but negative for human blood by HemaTrace.
Should that have been done PROMPTLY in this case to find out what vertebrate species caused the positive LCV test? ABSOLUTELY!
WHY? Because there was a freshly dead chicken in the vicinity of the kennels where Paul and Maggie’s bodies were found; and that freshly dead chicken had caught the attention of the first responders.
What would it have proven conclusively? If the blood spatter stains on the white T-shirt DNA-matched the dead chicken, it would have been near-conclusive proof that this is the T-shirt Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”) wore to the kennels and thence to his mother’s home at Almeda and back and gave to the first-responders on demand.
Should properly-trained first-responders have taken that freshly-dead chicken for testing even without knowing the Bubba story? ABSOLUTELY!
WHY? Because it would have told them, for example, if gases had been sprayed in the enclosed spaces before the shootings; that is, again just for example, to subdue the victims.
Since that shirt later DNA-tested negative for spatter from Paul’s blood, it all but conclusively exonerates RAM of the shooting of at least Paul, assuming that is the T-shirt RAM wore to the kennels.
Again, it could have been CONCLUSIVELY proven that this is the T-shirt RAM wore to the kennels had the dead chicken been collected for evidence and its DNA tested against the blood spatter stains which reacted positively to the LCV.
DUE PROCESS, I repeat, includes the right to a competent, scientific, examination of the crime scene by properly-trained and committed law enforcement officers. That is the responsibility of THE STATE and all its prosecutorial apparatus.
Instead, what RAM and basically most other criminal defendants in South Carolina and Massachusetts (Karen Read), get is incompetent, intellectually-lazy, if not corrupt, self-congratulatory supposed law enforcement who substitute their own speculation for science.
God willing and FITS permitting, I shall in a forth-coming comment re-iterate the timing of death by stomach contents at autopsy when the time and contents of the victim’s last meal are known with certainty.

A penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Those who pinch the penny of prevention want to cash in on the pound of cure.
That goes for the penny to properly train law enforcement and crime scene investigators compared to the pound of high-salaried prosecutors and defense attorneys and prosecutors-turned-defense-attorneys all in a case bound to ultimately fail due to investigatory failures from the start.
Ever heard the expression “like a chicken with its head cut off”? I means furiously flapping around.
Ever heard the expression “a stick-to-your-ribs mean”? It means fatty meals are emptied from the stomach much later than light ones.
Now, you might say human observation is that one has a bowel movement almost immediately after a large and fatty meal.
True; but that movement is NOT the meal you just ate. It is the prior meal(s) that got SLOWLY moved down the digestive tact, broken down, and absorbed with ONLY the indigestible residue passing down to the terminal part of the digestive tract and waiting there.
Waiting there for what?
For one of both of two things: enough volume to open the anal sphincter and/or signals from the very upper digestive tract that “more food is coming so you, distal colon and anus, better get empty and ready for it because you do not know how much it will be.”
How do the terminal colon and anus get those signals? The reflexes of the autonomic nervous system.
They start with the dento-colonic reflex. You are more likely to have a bowel movement after brushing your teeth in the morning.
Next is the gastro-colonic reflex. Even babies have bowel movements right after every feed. If that were the milk they just received, they would starve to death. It is the residue of the milk from the prior feeds.
The reflexes go the other way, too. Adults and babies feel hungrier after a bowel movement because the terminal colon tells the stomach “I’m good and empty and ready for the residue of the next meal to come down my way.”
That is why babies have more bowel movements a day because they need more feeds a day at the stage of fastest growth. As the growth curve slows, the number of bowel movements decreases until one bowel movement a day becomes the norm for adults.
These are, of course, the physiological, not pathological, sequences.
What does this have to do with Paul and Maggie?
We know FOR SURE that their last meal started after 8:00 pm on 7 June 2021 and ended at 8:30 pm that day.
We also know with relative certainty what they had because Blanca testified what she had cooked and left on the stove for them.
It would have been MANDATORY for properly-trained first investigators on the scene to collect that/those pots left on the stove and precisely measured how much, if any, food was left and precisely subtracted that from the total capacity of the pot(s) left on the stove and the dirty dishes, if any, around.
Of course, with three people sharing the same dinner from the same pots, it would have been an educated guess to apportion how much each of the three ate and drank.
But the bottom line is the Prosecution’s FALSE time of death at 8:49 or 8:52 pm, is ONLY 19 to 22 minutes after the last meal. THAT SOON after the last meal, the stomach contents should look almost exactly as they looked on the dinner plates.
THEY DID NOT.
They were too digested into “tan material” for the pathologist to tell exactly was they were and she “did not see any corn or beans or anything like that.” That pretty much rules out death 19 to 22 minutes after the last meal.
And it puts the most likely time of death around 9:30 pm.
Why did Maggie’s phone have some activity around 8:52 pm but not thereafter? EASY? She had laid it on the side-by-side or somewhere to have both hands free to handle the dogs; and one member of the shooting cabal got hold of it to prevent her from using it to record the events or to summon help. Once they realized someone was calling Maggie, they had to discard it far away to prevent her from reaching for it but not too far away for that member to return to the shooting cabal.
And the Defense team fell into the Prosecution’s trap and spent a lot of money proving that Alex would not have heard the shots fired at the kennels when he was at the house for some acoustic reason or another.
The real reason Alex could not hear the shots is that they were fired by the real shooter AFTER Alex had left for Almeda. And, no, he would not have seen, much less suspected a pedestrian disposing of Maggie’s phone on the side of the road.
All that stuff about the phone lighting or not lighting when thrown assumes it was thrown from a moving car.
It need not have been. It could have been placed by a pedestrian.
Tell me, if you can, where I am wrong.

For all your claims to be asking the hard questions, FITS, you omit a bombshell revelation in a deposition of your former employee, Callie Lyons, recently and curiously filed by another former employee of yours, Malicious Mandy Matney (“MMM”) in supposed defense against MMM’s contempt-of-court exposure.
That bombshell revelation, among many others obtained by Greg Parker’s civil defense because MMM’s text messages showed up on Callie Lyons’ i-phone is (drum rolls): the leak of the FALSE blood spatter was by former Alan Wilson employee Megan Burchstead to MMM.
I challenge you to delete this comment of mine, because your deleting is will prove you are an agent of Alan Wilson, too.
And I can, God willing, post it elsewhere, too, assuming the other outlets are not agents of Alan Wilson, too.

I earned the right to figuratively toot my own horn.
Look at what I wrote two years ago, and of which I was just reminded by another commenter’s question to me yesterday:
“@marieassaad-faltas1299
2 years ago
In reference to pages 59-60 of Becky Hill’s book, am I the ONLY one left in this world with any sense of decency?
FIRST, this means THAT MALE JUROR (not the female egg juror) was discussing the case with at least three friends and talking about how long the case will take.
SECOND, nothing BUT NOTHING compelled that juror to stay on the case and make just $20/day (NOT $10 because I read Becky Hill’s ENTIRE book VERY CAREFULLY). All that juror had to do is tell the judge about the work needs. The judge would have replaced that juror with an alternate (remember? six alternates had been chosen) and no outside money would have changed hands.
THIRD, how do we know there was no explicit or tacit understanding about what that juror was to do in return for those “thousands of dollars” from his three friends? After all, that jury, ACCORDING TO BECKY HILL, communicated with their eyes. Perhaps those friends winked and nodded as the money changed hands.
FOURTH AND FOREMOST, we need to know IMMEDIATELY if that money was the three friends’ own money or whether they were funneling it from someone else.
There may have been money laundering going on if the amount exceeded $10K. Banks are supposed to report those AND it is, according to MY understanding (and I am NOT a lawyer), money laundering to break a $10K transaction into smaller ones to evade the bank’s reporting requirement.
Frankly, I think Dick and Jim are not that brilliant after all. They don’t know where it is REALLY at.
It is no longer “the trial of the century” but “the mistrial of the decade.””
And then tell me why that male, guilty-voting, juror’s receipt of outside money is as ignored as Cousin Eddie Smith’s indicted alleged crimes.

Appreciation of the Constitution requires restoration of common sense among other things.
Because Creighton Waters and his “number 2” former-CACA Fernandez succeeded in getting the public to buy an insane motive theory and an insane idea of death by phone-battery-death, the public is now making its own insane ideas that Becky Hill was really out to help Alex because they were kin and secret lovers.
Here again is my latest brilliant reply which deserves to be read and re-read until people come to their senses:
? @MickeeAdams , if Becky Hill had been out to do Alex Murdaugh a favor, she would have pushed the jury to return a NOT GUILTY verdict and been done with it.
How many times do I have to try to counter the insane idea that Becky Hill was out to help Alex Murdaugh?

“Everything is on the table” says Alan Wilson tens of times in his most recent one-on-one interview with Anne Emmerson; but NOT ONCE does he say the possibility of Alex’s actual innocence is on the table.
Also, seeing the photo of Maggie’s phone on site where it was found, it is IMPOSSIBLE for that phone to have been thrown from a moving car. The thin twigs above it are intact and separated as if by hand, NOT broken as they would have been if the phone had been thrown from above them.
And why would Alex, if he were the shooter, go to such length to separate that phone from the murder site only to help law enforcement locate it, retrieve it, and unlock it, the next morning?