I should really leave it for JB but I am going to throw my two ha'ppence in as well
Charged with what, exactly?
Okay - here we go. What forensic evidence would that be? All the forensics has been worked. Yes, it can be worked again, but there is nothing to suggest that anything is likely to emerge.
There are no mystery fibres.
There are no mystery profiles
There is no stored clothing to be re-examined for trace evidence.
So what do you think is going to emerge?
Bullshit - you persist in discussing the same misinterpretations and misunderstandings and nobody harasses you; quite the opposite.
It's not substantial either.
Oh really? Well, do share, Einstein. What are these ''reductive tests'' which should have been performed?
That ship has sailed, dear.
The credibility of the dogs is not the issue and has never been in question by anyone whose opinion matters
So here's where you try another of your little falsehoods, falsely equating those who believe the forensic evidence is a dead end and those who are, in your parlance, the "anti-dogs brigade"
So I am going to give you the opportunity to explain precisely what further testing you believe should be conducted and what you would expect those tests to reveal.
Is it? Is it really?
I am going to assume that either you haven't read the forensic reports or you didn't understand what you were reading. And despite the fact that I have explained this about 20 times, you don't listen, so you never learn.
So I will say it again. There is no ''desperate need'' to prove something which is already there, in the reports. Yes, the dog alerted. However, none of the samples/residues collected tested positive for blood. I'll try explaining it to you again in the faint hope that you might take it in this time.
Several methods were used to try to detect biological residues, including the use of UV light sources and chemicals which attach to blood residues and glow in the presence of UV.
Nothing was found which gave a positive reaction for blood.
Spots which had the potential to be blood were also recovered and tested. None gave a positive reaction for blood.
Not a single residue tested positive for blood.
Now - at this point you will doubtless be jumping up and own screeching "But the dogs, but the dogs...!!!"
As has been explained to you about 8 billion times, and as you fail to grasp even when provided with scientific papers on the subject, there are a number of possible explanations for this.
The first is that, as demonstrated in the carpet squares study, half of which you clearly didn't understand, odour is a result of gaseous molecules released by a substance reacting with receptors in the nose. In order for any substance to smell, it must be capable of releasing molecules into the atmosphere. Does a lump of steel smell? No. Because it cannot release molecules into the air.
Okay so far?
So, here are the possibilities:
1. The dog alerted to residual odour, the source of the odour being no longer present (possible)
2. The dog alerted to odour from residues which were present but the residues were not sufficient to give a positive reaction for blood (possible, but unlikely - the tests are pretty sensitive)
3. The dog alerted to microscopic traces of blood but it cannot be confirmed because all that could be recovered was tiny fragments of DNA which could not be assigned to any bodily fluid (possible)
4. The dog recorded a false-positive response (unlikely, based on comparable situations in controlled conditions)
Does it matter? Not really, no. Without confirmation of the dog alerts, it cannot be relied upon.
What?! Sorry, let me try that again. What?!
So this is your level of understanding, is it? Negative for blood means an abductor could have taken the child, positive means the apartment had been cleaned?
You really are utterly clueless. Clueless.
It would appear, then, that your explanation is that there was blood, but it was cleaned, hence there was none to find.
Well, that really demonstrates how little you understand.
You can't ''clean away'' blood and leave it undetectable. It would still give a positive result with UV and luminol, even if visually clean.
There was absolutely nothing in that flat to indicate any significant shedding of blood. There were no ''blood spatters'' on the wall or curtain.
They won't. All the hairs were tested, there is nothing further to elucidate in terms of those results. The '4 hairs' you describe may have been eliminated on first examination as non-human, if they even exist (anything which requires further examination is marked up at a crime scene - not all will pan out)
The forensics will be reviewed, but in my opinion it is most unlikely they will be of any use. Your obsession with the ''blood alert'' stems from your lack of even the most basic understanding of biology.
For too long you and others have been allowed to get away with your vicious abuse of anyone who tries to explain the forensic results to you, which is only necessary because you were too lazy to read them for yourselves or too dumb to understand them. Much easier to shriek "You're dissing the dogs!" and demand the messenger is shot at dawn, isn't it?