What is your source for this distinction of "guilty of the blood"? I'm not disagreeing with it necessarily. I'm just not familiar with your distinction.
Not to be fecetious; but, can you read and think for yourself? Go sit down and read it in context and break it down. Hmm lets see, How can one be guilty for two accidents although he was only involved in one wreck. In the one instance he cause the accident, in the other he was also a party to it when he caused it. It isn't tough, one just has to apply themselves and seek God when it isn't this apparent.