Justice101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,275
- Reaction score
- 14,295
The prosecution is attempting to reject the alibi, but this is a modern day alibi where a cellphone may indeed prove to be the witness to where BK actually was. IMO, it must be allowed to prevent a future appeal. If other types of electronic witnesses are allowed such as traffic cameras, Ring doorbells, cellphone technology and the like, for the prosecution, so too, must cellphone technology be allowed for the defense. I can't see this trial not allowing that unless everyone's goal is to have an easily overturned verdict.
But if his phone was off during the murders and he is still using that as his alibi, wouldn't that be the equivalent of saying him saying "I was at work until midnight, and my boss can prove I was there."
The only time it matters is when the murders were done.
Anyway, sorry, common sense