I can't wrap my head around the fact that they arrested him the next day or so and made the comment that there was no indication of blood in his house at first sight and that it took special procedures to find blood residue which led them to a blood stain on the underside of the carpet. Yesterday, my daughter spilled nail polish on the carpet, completely different I know but, I tried everything and tried for hours to get it up and it is still there. How could he get a puddle of blood up so fast and completely get rid of "surface" evidence if there was so much blood there? Had he done this before? It makes me wonder.
Did you see the colour of the carpet? A rather convenient colour. Although it would still look like a big wet patch
. If it was a light carpet then I don't see how he could have got rid of all the visual surface evidence. But obviously he did a good job at cleaning up, on the surface at least.
I do wonder what other crimes he's committed. This can't be his first surely?