Powell v. State, 53 Ala. App. 30, 297 So.2d 163 (1974)." Taylor v. State, 361 So.2d 1189, 1192 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). His confession also corroborates H.N.'s testimony, which is summarized below.

At the outset, we are not inclined to hold that evidence of the presence of blood is not admissible unless it can be determined that the blood is human. Taylor v. State, 361 So.2d 1189, 1191-92 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). The next question is whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value.

Thus, appellant's argument is without merit. See: Trone v. State, Ala. Cr.App., 366 So.2d 379 (1979); Burton v. State, 364 So.2d 394, cert. denied, Ala., 364 So.2d 397 (1978); Taylor v. State, Ala. Cr.App., 361 So.2d 1189 (1978)."

By allowing the admission of the statements into evidence, the court found that the waiver was freely and voluntarily given. While there may be some testimony contrary to the voluntariness of appellant's statements, "if the evidence is fairly capable of supporting the inference that the rules of freedom and voluntariness were observed, the trial court's ruling as to voluntariness of a confession need only be supported by substantial evidence and not to a moral certainty." Collier v. State, 413 So.2d 396 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); Bennett v. State, supra; Taylor v. State, 361 So.2d 1189 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978); McNair v. State, 50 Ala. App. 565, 280 So.2d 171, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 789, 280 So.2d 177 (1973). Moreover, this court has held that when a trial court, after a hearing, has found that a confession or statement was given voluntarily, and where before the confession the confessor had been fully apprised of his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and where the trial court has heard the testimony of the witnesses outside the presence and hearing of the jury regarding the confessor's constitutional rights, and where a proper predicate was laid as to the confessor's voluntariness, then this court will not disturb the findings of the trial court; unless, this court finds the decision of the trial court palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence.

After a careful review of this record, it is our opinion that the trial court did not err in admitting appellant's statement. There was "sufficient evidence" to support the trial court's conclusion that said statement was intelligently, understandingly and voluntarily given. Burks v. State, 353 So.2d 539 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); Taylor v. State, 361 So.2d 1189 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Ard v. State, 362 So.2d 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Simpson v. State, 401 So.2d 263 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 265 (Ala. 1981). This record is free of error.

Even where there is credible testimony to the contrary, if the evidence is fairly capable of supporting the inference that the rules of freedom and voluntariness were observed, the trial court's ruling as to voluntariness of a confession need only be supported by substantial evidence and not to a moral certainty. Taylor v. State, 361 So.2d 1189 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); McNair v. State, 50 Ala. App. 465, 280 So.2d 171, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 789, 280 So.2d 177 (1973). A voluntariness predicate laid by the State is sufficient to show prima facie that a confession was made voluntarily.

Morgan v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 363 So.2d 1013. Even where there is credible testimony to the contrary, if the evidence is fairly capable of supporting the inference that the rules of freedom and voluntariness were observed, the trial court's ruling as to voluntariness of a confession need only be supported by substantial evidence and not to a moral certainty. Taylor v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 361 So.2d 1189. A voluntariness predicate laid by the State is sufficient to show prima facie that a confession was made voluntarily. Walker v. State, 269 Ala. 555, 114 So.2d 402. The trial court is not required to accept the testimony of the defendant as to the voluntariness of a confession if there is substantial testimony by others sufficient to constitute a predicate for the admission in evidence of the confession.

Thus, appellant's argument is without merit. See: Trone v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 366 So.2d 379 (1979); Burton v. State, 364 So.2d 394, cert. denied, Ala., 364 So.2d 397 (1978); Taylor v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 361 So.2d 1189 (1978). AFFIRMED.