RESULTS
Drying of blood splatters on gray sweatpants
The suspect’s sweatpants show splatter marks running from top to bottom in a watery-bloody area of the pants (Figs. 7, 8); the splatter marks have not dissolved in this area (Fig. 9).
This indicates that the suspect’s sweatpants already had dried drops of blood on them when they came into contact with water and/or a blood/water mixture: Small bloodstains remain on the surface of a dry fabric; they become blurred or dissolve on contact with damp surfaces (Fig. 10) (Wonder 2001). This therefore indicates that the victim’s wounds were bleeding profusely when the suspect made contact with the victim; his sweatpants were dry at the time.
If there is fresh blood without water on the pants first, it dries “fixed” very quickly (after two minutes at room temperature) (Fig. 11). This “old” blood is then no longer completely dissolved by moistening with water. Even when kneeling down in a mixture of blood and water with blood-splattered trousers, the original splashes do not completely dissolve (Figs. 12, 13). In both cases the original stains, which had already dried in a short time, remain either permanently or temporarily, depending on the amount of diluting liquid and the drying time.
This shows that drops of a blood-water mixture had also reached the knee area of the suspect’s jogging pants, which were still dry at the time. The blood splatter marks on the back of the sweatpants indicate that the blood had splattered from a point higher than ground level and not from a point flat on the ground (Fig. 14).
The blood did not drip from top to bottom onto the suspect’s trousers by gravity, but by accelerated blood from the sitting or standing victim. It seems unlikely that the blood got onto the suspect’s pants when the injured person coughed it up: The part of the suspect’s pants showing the stains in question would have been shielded during a possible attempted rescue of the injured man who was already lying down.
If the blood got onto the suspect’s trousers while he was standing, it came from splashes from above and not during the attempted rescue of the victim. Even a “shaking off or shaking away with the hands” after the suspect has been rescued cannot be considered to have caused the blood splashes: The small splashes would otherwise have run very strongly or become invisible.
Possible washing off of the suspect vs. dousing of the injured person
The suspect’s statement that he had not significantly washed himself off may be true. Our tests show that instead he knelt in an existing blood-water mixture. In view of the information known to us, this may have been caused by dousing the injured, bleeding person with water.
The suspect’s hands and face were still bleeding when the police arrived: The slightly rounded, rather sharp bloodied edges in the facial hemorrhage are consistent with “slapping one’s own hands in the face” (Figs. 15, 16) and then drying the thin layer of blood on the face. After bleeding and drying the blood on his face, the suspect may (later) have put water on his face; this is suggested by the gaps in the bloodstains around his eyes, which he had kept well closed while he did so.
Possible mouth-to-mouth resuscitation
It appears that mouth-to-mouth resuscitation cannot initially be ruled out in this case. From the point of view of the bloodstains’ investigation, however, the posture of the suspect is significant (Figs. 17-19): It is striking that the crotch of his pants did not have any bloodstains. Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation would have to have been performed entirely from the side (Fig. 19). This evidence is not consistent with the statement he made to the police that he had climbed over the lying man with at least one leg and then performed mouthto- mouth resuscitation: In this position “over” the body of the injured person, the victim’s blood would have reached the crotch area of the trousers.
Squatting, kneeling