The aim of this study was to validate the two presumptive blood tests LMG, LCV and the three visualising blood methods Bluestar Forensics, Lumiscene and the Ruhoff method. The methods’ sensitivity, durability, matrices effects, false positive results and the methods effect on subsequent DNA analysis were studied. DNA analyses were also performed to assess the detection limit of the forensic DNA analysis. Drops of diluted blood were applied on different absorptive matrices and the sensitivity was investigated. The solutions were also placed under different conditions to investigate the durability of the solutions. The solutions were applied upon panels using different chemicals and materials and the false positive results were studied. The DNA analyses were performed by diluting the blood with Bluestar Forensics, the hydrogen peroxide method, the Ruhoff method and deionised water. The study showed that the LMG with a 3 % H2O2 concentration performs the best and it is suited for practical casework. The positive results of LMG was easier to interpret than those of LCV, this is probably due to the fixative agent of the used LCV solution. Bluestar Forensics and Lumiscene did perform similar on the different matrices tested, but the Lumiscene solution had a slightly higher durability. The results strongly indicate that the Ruhoff method can be used without luminol, hence only as a hydrogen peroxide solution (the hydrogen peroxide method). All three visualising blood methods decreases chances of retrieving a positive DNA profile, however the visualising blood methods could be used if the blood cannot be found in any other way. A DNA profile was obtained from the one blood sample analysed at dilution of 1:256 in deionized water.