Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
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.
|
Should have trimmed the post, sorry. Was talking mostly about the center portion about the Crown's claims.
If they had known that they were going to be putting a who slew of witnesses on the stand to admit they lied and actually had no idea what happened, they probably would not have called them. Without the witnesses, what evidence would the Crown have been able to present that supported their claims?
Even the firearms expert they put on the stand was a bit of an embarrassment.