OK, it seems that the bloodred trait is a combination of two factors: pattern mutation and linebred coloration. The pattern mutation is simple recessive (or patially dominant, or co-dominant . . . however you want to look at it. No one is certain yet!) and an animal can be het for that trait. All outcrossed bloodreds are het for the bloodred pattern morph and can pass that on to their offspring in the same manner that any inheritable trait is passed on.
So, an outcrossed bloodred bred to a normal will give you a clutch of babies that are 50% normals and 50% outcrossed bloodreds. Clues as to which are which include the reduced coloration on the head pattern (the gray skull appearance) and the incomplete belly checks on the ventral sclaes (the "clear" stripe down the center). However, the only way to say that an animal is 100% het for the bloodred pattern is to have it be from an actual bloodred or to perform breeding trials.
As for the color side of the issue, it is no different than reverse okeetees, candycanes, or sunglows. It is merely an effect of line breeding for red coloration. That's why anery bloodreds, pewters, amel bloodreds, and bloodreds all have the same pattern, but show drastically differing shades within each category. The color will be a factor in some of the babies, and you may want to keep some of the high red ones to breed back in a project. However, the coloration and the pattern mutation are not necessarily linked to one another. It is very possible to get a high red normal and a rather drab baby het for bloodred.
Sooooo, If I had to bet on the question, I would say that the baby you showed in the picture above is probably het for bloodred, and so would all of the other babies be that show the same pattern clues. Since it is also defintely het for hypo, it would be a pretty valuable little snake, once it is proven to be het for both!
Congratulations!