MovieChat Forums > Witness for the Prosecution (1958) Discussion > Why would Vole be slicing bread in his o...

Why would Vole be slicing bread in his overcoat?

posted 10 years ago by marckymarc71
8 replies | jump to latest

This bugged me a little. The defense made the case that the blood on Vole's overcoat came from his own body because he was type O just like the victim, so that it was not incriminating. Vole claimed the blood was because he was slicing bread in his home and the knife slipped and he cut himself.

His blood type was the same as the victim--fine
He cut himself slicing bread--fine

But add these two points together and it falls apart, because why the heck would he be wearing an overcoat in his kitchen while helping to make dinner?

It bugged me that the the prosecution didn't exploit this.

[–] panemique 10 years ago

The blood was not on his overcoat, it was on his jacket.

[–] SAMRubinsky 10 years ago

The OP is likely to remain bugged, however.

[–] lucyrfisher 10 years ago

Back then a man's jacket was referred to as a "coat".

[–] PillowRock 7 years ago

But definitely *not* as an "overcoat", which is the word th OP used. (That's what the word means: what you put on OVER your COAT.)

[–] liscarkat-2 9 years ago

He was really hungry for a piece of bread when he came in and couldn't wait to take off his coat.

[–] mikekrit62 9 years ago

Back then, homes were heated by coal. If no one had been home all day, it might be cold in the house. So he left his coat on until he made a quick sandwich and then went down to stoke the furnace.

Or maybe he'd been out flashing people in the park and all he was wearing was a coat.

It's one of those great mysteries that will probably never be solved...

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

There are many possiblities for why he was wearing the coat, it's not an impossible situation.

[–] UdoConstantini (117) 3 years ago

It was a clear signal to the audience/reader that it was made up. Obviously he would have taken his coat off first.