Fisherman the strength in Cofty's argument lies in how God views blood. If he viewed the blood of an animal found dead in the same way as he viewed the carcass, then it explains why both eating the blood or touching the carcass only lead to uncleanness.
In the context of someone who is out hunting, (Lev. 17:13-17) the watchtower's statement that uncleanness was only a provision for someone who accidentally ate the dead animal is both desperate and laughable.
God only viewed blood as having value once a life was taken. It is only form this perspective that the scriptures relating to blood can be understood.
This is why Cofty's question, "Why is there a difference if as you assert, the blood of an animal that dies of itself is just as sacred as one that has been killed?" gets right to the heart of the issue.