EVIDENCE

Evidence

Evidence

Is the swimming card likely to be admissible evidence against Bob?

Bob and Rita are not linked in any way and the main thing is that Rita doesn't remember any thing from the night she got drunk. So if she finds a swimming card of an unknown person in her house then it clearly is evidence. Bob would have to prove that his card was missing or stolen and at the night of theft he was sleeping at his own house. If bob is unable to prove all this then the swimming card is very solid evidence against him. There is another angle to this case, that the thief deliberately dropped the card at Rita's place to frame Bob and misdirect the police.

Comment on the use that the prosecution may make about the evidence from the two police interviews with Bob.

In the first interview Bob was not asked about his swimming card and he didn't answered any other questions as well. In the second interview when he was asked about his swimming card, he answered that he had lost the card two weeks before the theft, now this card surely be can be used against Bob as evidence. Rita's lawyer can easily prove that the card found at Rita's place belongs to Bob and Bob has no solid evidence that the car was lost and there is no witness that bob was sleeping on the night of the theft.

Is Rita's conviction for insurance fraud likely to be admitted at the trial?

Bob's lawyer can make a point that Rita is unsure about the theft of her jewellery, and can say that Rita has done the same thing in the past. The case of insurance fraud can be made in the court and on the basis of it, Rita could be asked to show some evidence that she owned the jewellery that has been stolen. Even if Rita shows some evidence that she had the jewellery there insurance fraud case can go in the favour of Bob.

What will be the effect on his defence if Bob decides not to testify?

If Bob decides not to testify then he his position will become very weak and he will be proved guilty. So it is better for Bob to testify and try to give evidence of his innocence. He have to show some evidence that his card was lost and he would have to present a witness who can prove that Bob was at home when the burglary happened at Rita's place.

How will the neighbour's identification evidence be treated at the trial?

The neighbour's identification can be questioned, because at first the neighbour said that he saw a tall man with red hair and \bob didn't fit that description. But when the neighbour was asked to identify Bob he/she identified Bob as the man he/she saw at the night of the burglary. Bob is five feet two inches and has blond hair and the neighbour saw a tall man with red hair, then how can the neighbour say ...