Blood Marks in the Bathroom

So, the Van der Vyvers and Bill Bodziak want us to believe that the police added the appendage to frame Fred.

Above: The mark (B) that was apparently added to frame Fred. That while nothing was said that the curve of A fits the sole’s curve without any doubt. and without wondering if it would not have been easier to plant Inge’s blood on the shoe if they wanted to frame Fred.

Below: If you look at the ‘before’ photo (top image) and the ‘after’ photo (bottom image) after digital filtering, it is clear that flow took place in the mark. The whole mark swelled. It was not simply a modification – such as the adding of a mark.

It is clear that there was a higher concentration blood in the upper right area. After fluid was applied on the mark, the fluid dissolved the blood and this mix moved to an area of lower concentration. In the photo below one can even see how the blood ran into the grout area (red square) (even Bodziak pointed this out.)

Some fluid moved downward towards an area of lower concentration – but there was a gap in the dege of the mark where some fluid pushed out. In most of the mark, the fluid ran up against the edge of the mark, which was formed when the rubber etched the blood on the tile, forming a “wall” (blue line). Where the groove in the sole was, no such etching took place, and it essentially left a “gate” open where the fluid would run out later, leaving a natural flow mark (the appendage).

Below is a basic explanation of what we refer to as ‘etching’ – essentially the formation of a “wall” when something with an edge is placed onto or into a blood mark and then lifted up.

Below we can clearly see etched edges.

Here we can clearly see how a fluid welled up against the sides. Note the flow to the top right (towards and into the grout groove of the tile). Where the appendage would form, there was a gap in the edge of the mark, where the fluid which accumulating in that area, ran out.

The more prominent edges visible to the left. Less so to the right. It is clear that the mark significantly changed as a whole.

In the top and bottom images the higher concentration blood in the higher part is visible before the fluid was applied. Note how depleted that area becomes as the fluid ran upwards and downwards (as you view the photo).

Flow within the mark clearly visible. Think about a cake on which the icing is smeared around. To the top right was a thick band of blood (higher concentration), which dissolved and ran towards the grout (to the top) and and down to where a lower concentration of blood was. It then ran out at the “gate” that was formed by the groove in the sole.

The fact that the appendage formed naturally and that it fits the groove of the sole has serious implications for the right shoe of Fred van der Vyver. We must remember that even without the appendage, both the larger marks fit the areas on the sole very well.

The police only saw the shoes for the first time two weeks after this appendage appeared. How could they have fabricated a mark to fit into a sole of a shoe that they had never seen? A little fact missed by the likes of Antony Altbeker and Bill Bodziak. And why not rather plant Inge’s blood on the shoes while they had the chance, if they had it? Sometimes a rational mind goes a long way.