Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background/Objectives: Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) is widely used in crime scene investigation (CSI), yet its practical application, evidential limits, and interpretive role are often discussed in fragmented or technique-focused terms. This systematic literature review examines how BPA is used in CSI, with emphasis on its operational functions, interpretive scope, and scientific robustness. Methods: The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in Scopus using predefined Boolean strings. After screening, eligibility assessment, and manual review, 18 peer-reviewed research articles published between 1996 and 2026 were included. Data were extracted systematically and analysed using thematic synthesis. Results: The findings show that BPA is applied in CSI as an integrated evidential pathway rather than as a single analytical procedure. Its uses include bloodstain detection and documentation, geometric reconstruction through trajectory and area-of-origin analysis, differentiation of mechanisms and sources to prevent misclassification, activity-level inference based on transfer and contact phenomena, and temporal reasoning related to trace formation. The review also highlights the role of validation infrastructures, including blood substitutes, animal analogues, and computational methods, which support training, experimentation, and reproducibility under ethical and practical constraints. Across the literature, reconstruction accuracy is shown to be sensitive to documentation quality, measurement assumptions, environmental conditions, and contextual limitations. Conclusions: Overall, BPA contributes to CSI by enabling structured, context-aware interpretation of blood evidence while remaining subject to measurement assumptions, contextual influences, and cognitive factors that may affect reconstruction outcomes. Its evidential value lies not only in reconstructing events, but also in supporting transparent, testable, and defensible forensic reasoning.
Yusof et al. (Mon,) studied this question.