They sure are stating that the witness nevere said the word "bloody". That one, single, solitary word is also in quotes in the proposed wording by th D-Team in their document.
Did she instead state something akin to: "I passed a man who was covered in mud and blood".
They chose a single word to highlight and quote. But that does not mean the witness did not state that she saw a man with blood and mud on him. Indeed a good paraphrase of the above proposed statement for a PCA would be, "she descibed passing a man who was muddy and bloody". Which she did. Perhaps she also stated that he was carrying a dark blue jacket and wearing a lighter coloured one. I just find it really suspect that they highlight one word to concentrate on ... because she did not actually use the "quoted word" in her description, but then, the PCA doesn't have her word(s) in quotes, only the D-Team does and then only the one word at that.
The Judge knows more than you and I do. She has denied their motion so I suspect that what they chose to concentrate on, and to quote, doesn't accurately paint the picture of what the witness actually put forth with her statement. Kind of like their writings that state there was no blood at the crime scene which we now know to be absolutely false. Just because the D-Team writes it, doesn't make it an acurate or factual depicition of the evidence.
If I've seen enough videos of interrogations... (and I have. Probably weeks of footage) ... it could have likely been as follows.
Phone tip: 'I wanted to report that I've seen a person, I think covered in blood? On the 13th'
- The LE is sorting through thousands of tips and months pass, until they can video-tape an interview -
Video interview: "So you saw a man, on the 13th. What did he look like?"
"I didn't get a good look, but he was like... dirty"
"Dirty how? Dusty? Like he was working construction?"
"No, more like, he was in a fight. Or like he fell in the river"
"Did he look injured?"
"I don't know. Nothing on his face, I don't think."
"How could you tell he was in a fight?"
"I am not sure/I don't know, something about how dirty/dishevelled he looked/the way he walked. He looked like he was covered in something wet, could have been blood."
"You are positive there was a man walking by the side of the road, covered in blood?"
"It could have been mud, or blood."
The above is total conjecture, but this would be an example of how, if I was the DT, I could use the above to say the witness never said 'bloody'.
All MOO.
