Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
Had the Crown actually vetted their witnesses, the chances that charges would have been brought in the first case is probably very slim. None of their evidence supported anything they claimed during the trial.
|
Not quite sure the point you're trying to make with respect to my post about this really not being a self-defense case.
But even without witnesses, Stanley's own testimony probably warranted enough to go to trial. Let's not forget that there was a dead body.
Like what do you think would happen without the witnesses?
"How'd that happen?"
"My gun just went off accidentally"
"Oh okay."
Yes, surely the witnesses did not help the Crown's prosecution when it's likely they were not being truthful on the stand, but even without them completely there was major questions that warranted a trial.