The "new" witness statements were both updated statements in 2015 - both first given in 2011. The 2011 statements contained nothing about language the woman may have used. The 2015 versions both contained the same language / variations of that language that Ched claimed was used.Originally Posted by kingbillyboy
Prosecution were blocked by the trial judge from persueing those obvious discrepencies. It's amazing how two purported independent witnesses conveniently manage to remember similar language four years after their original statements.
Evans' partner directly approached a key prosecution witness after the first trial, asking if he had any additional evidence that could clear Ched - mentioning the 50k reward. After he didn't reply, she contacted him again berating him.
Prosecution were blocked by the trial judge from mentioning this event, which looks like a clear attempt to persuade a key witness to alter testimony.
The problem a jury has is we can now see how hamstrung the prosecution was when questioning this new evidence. I'd say that if the jury had known the above the verdict would probably have been different.
Reply With Quote