Isn’t it
Even the defence doc released yesterday states there wasn't as much blood at the scene as one would have expected. They postulate perhaps this is because it was collected for some sort of future use. Ok then, so what would a killer or killers have collected blood in exactly? A ziplock bag?
According to the article cited below, a female who is 5'5 and weighing 165lbs will have about 9 pints (4.3 liters) of blood in their body. The article further notes that:
"
When a person loses around 15% of their blood volume, they can start to experience shock, although their blood pressure and other signs will likely be normal at this point.
After losing 20–40%, the person’s blood pressure will start to fall, and they will begin to feel anxious. If they lose more blood, they will start to feel confused. Their heart rate may rise to around 120 beats per minute (bpm), as the body tries to maintain blood supply to the vital organs.
When blood loss is 40% or more, the person will be in severe shock. Their pulse rate will rise over 120 bpm. They will feel lethargic and may lose consciousness."
Everyone has a different amount of blood in their body depending on their age and size. How many pints does the average person have? How much can you lose?
www.medicalnewstoday.com
Libby was apparently 5'4 and weighed 200lbs. Exsanguination for the average woman used in the height and weight metric above would mean a woman would lose between 1.83 - 1.72 litres of blood (20-40%) if she bled out or exsanguinated.
Now compare that to a can of soda. The kids would have lost well over an average can of soda in blood, and likely more than that. But very little blood was found at the scene per the documents we read yesterday.
So? Where did it go then? How were the clothes that Abby was found in clean save for a bit of blood around the neck area? Especially when the police assert that a witness saw a man walking away from the general area of the crime scene who was muddy and bloody as if he had just been in a fight - an assertion the defence now alleges was fabricated by police!!? There is no way a "bloody, muddy" suspect is dressing the victim without getting mud and blood on her. Also, there was no mention but her clothes were clean - so what, they weren't wet from a creek crossing?
It seems there HAD to have been more than one person involved in the murders if the clothes on Abby were clean. I don't know what the deepest or shallowest point of the creek would have been, but nothing was even mentioned about wet shoes on Abby. How then did they cross the creek? I'm not sure they did. I could believe that a car waited for them at the end of the bridge and they were taken, driven there (how long would that take)? But I cannot believe they crossed the creek as part of a kidnap with the water being as high as it would have been, and then Abby's clothes being clean when she was found.
Just the WEIGHT of the clothes the victims wore that day would have made the creek hard to cross - wet shoes get bogged down, socks feel like cement weights. Jeans, track pants, sweaters... Abby's clothing should have been wet & dirty. They weren't. Why not?
Then there is the issue of the PCA which tells us two items of clothing were missing from the scene. Ok. Which two? From which victim? If Abby was wearing Libby's outfit when she was found, then where are Abby's clothes? If her clothes were at the scene, why no mention of if they were wet or dry or muddy or bloody? If they were not there, then have they been recovered at all??
