Your comments Collin made me research some old presentations/studies
that the Department of Forensic Science had done in the past. One of
those was a study done in 2005 by some of our Forensic Scientists
from the Western Lab, (Nicole Harold, Chad Harris, and Jessica
McElligott). Here are some of their findings:

"The results for the sensitivity analysis showed that Luminol was
slightly more sensitive than BlueStar" Yet they later stated "on
par" as a discription of their sensitivity.

"Overall, it was determined that BlueStar Forensic is the better
option.
"It is easier to prepare than Luminol."
"The sensitivity is on par with Luminol."
"The effects of the cleaning products tested appeared the same
regardless of chemical used."

Another sample of info from the presentation:
"Most importantly, BlueStar does not appear to be as destructive to
the DNA analysis of stains as Luminol."


I know that our Evidence Handling and Capabilities Guide lists
Bluestar as an option to use rather than luminol. In the end cost
and preference based on experience will be the factors in the choice.


Anyone else want to describe their experiences? I have no Bluestar
crime scene experience. Luminol worked for me when I was out there.

Steve



--- In VFSAAA@yahoogroups.com, "Collin Byrne" <Collinkarabyrne@...>
wrote:
>
> I would respectfully disagree with the with the conclusions that
were made
> as far as Blue Star being less sensitive then luminol. In 2006
there was an
> article published by IAI
> (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=237268)
that
> concluded the opposite to the conclusions made by Mr. Larkin.
Evidence
> Magazine published an article that found Blue Star to be more
sensitive then
> luminol. The March-April 2006 article (pages 28-32) concluded that
Blue
> Star was more sensitive then luminol. To quote the conclusion at
the end of
> the article "The findings in these experiments have proven that
BlueStar
> Forensic is easier to use, more sensitive, and easier to photograph
when
> compared side-by-side with luminol." I have personally used both
luminol
> and Blue Star, there is nothing wrong with luminol but I really
like the
> results of the BlueStar.
> I have attached a picture of a jean jacket from a BPA case that I
did
> involving a beating with a vacuum cleaner. The prosecutor wanted
the Jury
> to see the blood on one of the suspect's jacket. The blood on the
jacket
> was not very visible so I used BlueStar and then layered it on an
image of
> the same jacket using a tripod in the same position for both
pictures. You
> can see the results on the attached picture.
>
>
> Inv. Collin Byrne
> Criminal Investigations Division
> Lynchburg Police Department
> 805 Court St.
> Lynchburg, VA 24504
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Steve Stockman" <gtxgp@...>
> >Reply-To: VFSAAA@yahoogroups.com
> >To: VFSAAA@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [VFSAAA] Information on Bluestar vs Luminol
> >Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:06:24 -0000
> >
> >
> >This was posted on the IABPA newsgroup by a very trusted source
that
> >being Tony Larkin from the UK. I thought I would pass it along.
I
> >will continue to pass along anything else I see.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >----- Forwarded Message ----
> >From: Tony Larkin <tony.larkin@...>
> >To: bloodstain-patterns@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 2:05:18 PM
> >Subject: RE: [bloodstain-patterns] Re: Bluestar Forensic
> >
> >
> >Mieke,
> >
> >My lab did an extensive validation of bluestar vs luminol (grodsky)
> >and found that bluestar is far less sensitive than luminol, which
> >means there is the risk of missing evidence (this was all measured
> >using a luminometer for accuracy), whilst it did glow brighter at
> >higher concentrations of dilute blood (up to about 1 in 1000), this
> >dropped right off and at this dilution the luminol reaction got
> >brighter. If I recall correctly we also found that Bluestar
reactions
> >faded a lot faster than luminol, particularly at higher dilutions
of
> >blood - this is probably also due to its lack of sensitivity. In
> >addition preliminary studies also indicated that Bluestar was more
> >destructive to DNA, and as one of the readers has indicated the
shear
> >cost of the product in conjunction with the above issues identified
> >has meant that our lab does not use Bluestar. This research was
> >presented at the IABPA conference in Middleburg and also in Corning
> >New York, and I think the abstract appears in the IABPA journal, so
> >you could look there for a summary. Also, it is worth noting that
> >luminol also does not need complete darkness, although better
> >reactions are observed when it is dark, but not as good as Bluestar
> >when there is some ambient light in the room. Given the digital
> >caprture systems our force uses and stitiching of images I don't
see a
> >need to have ambient light in the room to show locations of
reactions.
> >One day I will get around to publishing the research, but I think a
> >good study was conducted by McDaid et al and published in the
Journal
> >of the Forensic Science Society, which you could also look up. I
think
> >these authors obtained simialr results to our research.
> >
> >I have a lot of experience using luminol both indoors and outdoors,
> >including grass, soils and in forests. If you email me at my work
> >address (anthony.larkin@ met.police. uk) I would be happy to help
you
> >out and send you some of the details of our research into luminol
vs
> >bluestar.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Tony Larkin
> >Lead Scientist
> >Metropolitan Police Service
> >London
> >England
> >
> >============ ========= ========= ========= =
> >Message Received: Jul 30 2008, 04:07 PM
> >From: "Patrick Cicero" <p_cicero@hotmail. com>
> >To: bloodstain-patterns @yahoogroups. com
> >Cc:
> >Subject: RE: [bloodstain- patterns] Re: Bluestar Forensic
> >
> >
> >Mieke,
> >
> >We have been using Bluestar for some time. We have used it during
> >investigations as well as training settings. I would respectfully
> >disagree with Bob in regards to the similarities to luminol. I have
> >always obtained better, longer, and brighter reactions than
luminol.
> >Please refer to the Bluestar Forensics website, ariticles published
> >with the IAI, and other reference materials, and you will be able
to
> >determine its effectiveness based upon the numerous studies already
> >done. Thank you.
> >
> >Detective Patrick Cicero
> >LaPorte County Sheriff's Office
> >
> >
> >
> >To: bloodstain-patterns @yahoogroups. comFrom: bobbonczek@yahoo.
> >comDate: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:45:59 +0000Subject: [bloodstain-
> >patterns] Re: Bluestar Forensic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello Mieke,We discovered Blue Star at a professional conference
and
> >were interested in its claims about how much better it is as
opposed
> >to luminol. So our lab did a little experiment comparing luminol to
> >Blue Star and found there to be no difference with regards to
> >intensity of the fluorescence or the longetivity of the
fluorescence.
> >It was under controlled conditions in the laboratory on know blood
> >samples. We found the convenience of mixing Blue Star did not
outweigh
> >the heavy cost of the product.Bob --- In bloodstain-patterns
> >@yahoogroups. com, "miekedekens" <miekedekens@ ...> wrote:>>
hello,> >
> >I am a Master student at Bournemouth University in England. For my
>
> >masters in Forensic archaeology I am doing research on the
> >preservation > of bloodstains in outdoor environments, such as
grass
> >for example.To > detect the blood I am using Bluestar Forensic.> >
Is
> >there anyone that has had experience with either outdoor crime >
> >scenes and bloodstains in that environment? Or just experience
with >
> >Bluestar Forensic in general? Any information would be very
helpful.>
> > > Thank you very much.> > Regards,> > Mieke Dekens>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>