colette, regarding the blood evidence, I would generally agree with you if this were some kind of household accident. For example, I'm walking toward a door, somebody opens it toward me as I reach for the door handle, the edge of the door hits me in the nose, I stand there as my nose bleeds, and within a short amount of time there's a 2" by 3" puddle on the floor.
However, this is different. We all know the only reason Jessica's blood was on the ground was because she was attacked. So, it's not like the person hit her and allowed her to stand there in place and bleed for 30 seconds. Instead, because it was an attack, the splotch had to have been created in a very, very short amount of time. Why? Because nothing was stolen. The guy, presumably, didn't take any cash. Take her purse. Take any items . . . at least as far as we know. None of Jessica's blood was found inside the store. So, once striking her, he never went into the store. Thus, the only inference that can be made is, as soon as he struck her, he threw her into the van.
Now, maybe there were a few seconds where she lay there as he opened the hatch . . . sure. But, how long 7 seconds? 10 seconds, I'd say at the most. And in those ten seconds, at least according to the blood evidence, Jessica didn't move at all. How do we know that? The blood was in a puddle, not a streak. Nor where there little droplets surrounding it. So, once again, a person could infer that in those 10 seconds Jessica couldn't move because, probably, she was knocked out. So, this wasn't a hit to the nose by a door, which wouldn't knock someone out. This was a strike to incapacitate. I guess one might even say a "deathly blow".
That's why I insist that this wasn't about rape. Sure, rapists strike women. They punch them. Etc. But rapists usually want the woman to be awake during the violence. Why? Because these rapists perversely get off on it. Yes, afterwards, some rapists will knock there victims out. Even kill them. But not before.
So, I don't see him knocking her out. Then waiting around somewhere else for her to wake up, so as to rape her. That's too much of a stretch to me.
Instead, what makes more sense is he struck her at the store to incapacitate her for good. That's why I think the blood evidence and its amount is more deathly than others seem to think. Yes, I can sit here and tell you that a 2" by 3" puddle of blood isn't a big deal if my nose is dripping for a minute in my home because of an accident (I hate the sight of blood by the way). But in the context of an quick attack, I think it's a big deal.
As for a container in the back of the van, sure, I can see that. But I don't think this guy could've avoided getting blood on him in this encounter, then not tracking it to the driver's seat of the van. Also, I think we've all--including myself--become Hollywood-ized regarding how easily bodies can be made to disappear with no evidence. Whereas, reality--the Forensic Files, The First 48, Disappeared--shows us that it's a bit more complicated than movies say. I am NOT dismissing the container idea. All I'm saying is it wouldn't be as neat and clean as has been portrayed in fiction.
