Chapter 16 of 27 · 3'53"
The prosecution puts Vole's jacket on show: bloodstains of type O, the same group as the murdered woman, and someone tried to wash them out. Wilfrid answers not by denying the blood but by producing a certificate — Vole is himself a type O blood donor — turning the damning stain into a household accident.
Only Facts, No Surmise
The Blood Donor Certificate
In court, the inspector presents the jacket found in Vole's flat. Tests show the stains are human blood, type O — the same group as Mrs French — and someone had tried to wash them out. Wilfrid then produces a certificate proving Vole is a blood donor with type O blood, so the stains could come from his own cut wrist. He also questions the burglar theory.
Forensics look like the prosecution's cleanest weapon: blood of the victim's own group, on the accused's jacket, half-washed. Wilfrid's response is the film's method in miniature — accept the fact and change what it means. He does not deny that the stains are human blood; he makes the same fact harmless by showing the accused shares that blood type. The burglar theory, by contrast, gets him nowhere: "Let us not surmise, Sir Wilfrid, but confine ourselves to facts," the judge cuts in, and the gloves argument dies with it. Then comes the more dangerous thread: the knife and the wrist. Wilfrid's question about whether the cut was "an accident or done deliberately after the murder to account for the bloodstains" is objected to and withdrawn — but the doubt has already been planted.
A1–C2 is the CEFR scale. Cards above the level you pick fade, and playback will not auto-pause on them.
“Let us not surmise, Sir Wilfrid, but confine ourselves to facts.”
The judge cuts off speculation in one calm sentence and returns the room to evidence.
Formal
“is there anything to show whether it was an accident or done deliberately after the murder to account for the bloodstains?”
The either-or question quietly plants murder and cover-up as the only two readings of the cut.
Formal
“I have here a certificate stating that Leonard Stephen Vole is a blood donor at the North London Hospital.”
A plain certificate, not an argument, quietly defuses the blood evidence against the accused.
Formal
“Did the prisoner's wife show you a knife and tell you that her husband had cut his wrist while slicing bread?”
One question pins the old bread-slicing story to the witness, and the whole defence turns on it.
Formal
Up next · 17hither and thitherThe scene: Janet McKenzie Takes the StandBecause the blood on the jacket matches the victim's group, it lets the prosecution suggest the stains came from the murder. A matching blood type alone is not proof, but it is strong circumstantial evidence.
He produces a certificate showing Vole is a blood donor and his own blood is type O. If the accused shares the victim's blood type, the stains could come from his cut wrist rather than the crime.
Wilfrid argued a burglar might have entered, struck Mrs French and fled. The judge rejected the guesswork, saying the court must confine itself to facts, and the gloves argument went nowhere.
He asked whether the wrist cut was an accident or made deliberately after the murder to explain the blood. It drew an objection, so he withdrew it — but the suggestion had been heard by the jury.
It means a witness may leave the witness box. After Wilfrid finishes with the inspector, the court tells him he may stand down, and the next witness, Janet McKenzie, is called.
