« TV3 broadcasts “I shot the prick” tape extract | Main | Law Commission goes all social networky »
Bain – and antidote?
By Steven | June 12, 2009
Calling evidence experts… Can anyone tell me why the Courts couldn’t have let the jury see half of the “paper run alibi” evidence? Why couldn’t jurors be told that David Bain was speculating about committing a crime, but it wasn’t murder, and it didn’t involve his family… and then let them hear and assess in full the evidence about how he said he would have jiggered his paper run to cover it up? (And of course, any evidence for Bain saying that such conversation(s) never took place).
Doesn’t that take out much of the prejucial effect of this evidence (which is reportedly why it was ruled inadmissible) but preserve its probative value (which strikes me as fairly strong)?
I confess I haven’t been able to find an unredacted version of the Court of Appeal’s decision on this point. Did they really say that the paper run alibi didn’t form an important part of the Crown’s case?
Topics: General | Comments Off on Bain – and antidote?