If we consider that crime scene reconstruction (CSR) is a function of defining what happened and in what order it happened, then it should be relatively obvious that two forensic disciplines provide significant input to that task. They are forensic pathology and bloodstain pattern analysis. The reason for their importance is simple: both define the “what” of crime. The vast majority of forensic disciplines help us understand the “who” of crime. Through trace evidence, DNA, and fingerprints, we make associations of individuals to objects and scenes. This information is certainly relevant and important, but this information becomes ancillary to understanding what happened. Contrast this with the information provided by the forensic pathologists. Much of their effort is directed at defining what types of injuries occurred, the orientation of those injuries to the body, and, in some instances, the sequence of those injuries. This information is critical in understanding the “what” of crime; it tells us what types of events occurred to the victim. Bloodstain pattern analysis mirrors forensic pathology in the respect that it allows us to peer back into the past and define the nature of blood-letting events that transpired on scene.