This is part of a direct quote:
Near him was a pruning knife with a wooden handle and a curved three-inch blade.
In my previous post none of the witnesses spoke of "a wooden handle" to the knife. The person who should have been most reliable in his evidence is, in my opinion, Mr Green who not only sees the knife in situ but subsequently the knife goes to his laboratory. Mr Green though describes it as a stainless steel knife, if the handle was partly or wholly wood he would surely have mentioned the fact.
Two possibilities come to mind:
- After an interval of seven years DC Coe's memory is at fault on this particular point.
- The knife described by him is not the same knife that the later witnesses saw.
Later in the Matt Sandy article we read:
DC Coe is clear on the amount of blood he saw. He said: 'I certainly didn't see a lot of blood anywhere. There was some on his left wrist but it wasn't on his clothes. On the ground, there wasn't much blood about, if any.
'I didn't see any bloodstains on the bottle and I didn't check the knife.'
Is it really credible that he never noticed the blade and handle being heavily stained with blood as viewed by Mr Green, or Dr Hunt's 8-10 by 4-5 cm pool of blood?
I suspect that the heavy bloodstaining on the knife, and the pool of blood, weren't there when he first saw the body. Later I will explain why the knife was moved ... this would be the time then to "create" the pool of blood.