[CedarDave]

Yeh, I recall reading it could have been some time ago (maybe several months earlier), because the young lady was adventurous and could have cut herself elsewhere. But his going to the dry cleaners at that time with that blood on it, can lead to a conclusion that the "accident" causing her to bleed happened just recently.

[UCANSEE2]

(1) It was not proven to be blood. It was "PRESUMED" to be blood.

The CLERK at the dry cleaners testified that he did not see any BLOOD or STAINS on the JACKET when DW gave it to him, and DW didn't ask to have any STAINS removed.

[small_l_libertarian]

Not necessarily. The dry cleaner (who would have been looking for stains) said that she didn't see any blood on the jacket. Feldman pointed out that Westerfield also had a dry cleaning receipt dated 1-26 for a jacket. The blood could have been cleaned out then. That would explain why the dry cleaner didn't see a 1-3/8" bloodstain on a green jacket. Could have been cleaned at any time in the past, and we'd never know. Can't date the blood.