We discussed this for hours on a previous thread.
We have posters who have expert knowledge in the testing of stains, blood, and they said the test done, HEMASTIX, would prove that a stain COULD be blood, or RUST, or about a dozen other things. The ACTUAL TEST that PROVES something IS BLOOD was not done.
The tests done at the VD home where there were BLOODSTAINS on the STAIRWELL, WALL, and on the CEMENT outside by the GARAGE, were ones that GAVE PROOF whether they were BLOOD or NOT.
Well that makes absolutely no sense at all unless there was some justifiable reason for this. Does the other test positively identifying blood require more of a sample than what was available. I can't think of any other reason for not doing that test.