Claremont Serial Killer Trial: Prosecution and defence teams have to disclose their evidence before a trial starts. An ace up a sleeve is unlikely

In a criminal trial the rules of evidence and the requirements of pre-trial disclosure mean the defence knows in advance precisely what the prosecution has in its armoury. The prosecution doesn’t have quite the same luxury, but it does know from the defence opening statement what will be in issue. They do, however, know all the details of any defence expert evidence, or possible alibi, that might be forthcoming. The rules provide that any such evidence must be disclosed by the defence well before the trial starts. The course the Bradley Edwards trial will take when it resumes this week is largely set in stone. The potential of an unforeseen ace emerging is improbable. In the movies the possibility of a surprise witness emerging with some new, startling, incontrovertible evidence of guilt or innocence keeps everyone on the edge of their seat. In reality, however, that rarely, if ever, happens. We all know precisely what is coming in the Edwards case — the lawyers told us on day one. Of course there will be some minor variations and concessions, but nothing is likely to alter the course of the trial. Nor are we likely to know the answer to some interesting but unanswered questions that have emerged. What was it in Edwards’ bedroom that was so sinister that it ensured his first wife’s lover left the house immediately after their affair was discovered? Why didn’t the prosecution pursue this issue? What was it that the witness Annabelle Smith noticed about the driver of a vehicle (suggested to be the accused) that was so remarkable it made her drag her friend Trilby Smith from the car in Cottesloe one night when they had been offered a lift? Why wasn’t this clarified? Why wasn’t Edwards’ second wife asked the reason for saying in her evidence that she “feared for her life”? Well in advance of any trial beginning, the lawyers and the judge review all the proposed evidence. Rulings are made as to what can be led and what can’t. Opinions, speculation, hearsay, and irrelevant and other legally inadmissible evidence is ruled out. The issues that somewhat curiously haven’t been pursued in the present case probably fell into that category. As tantalising as they may have seemed at face value, had this evidence been legally admissible and of any significant probative value to the prosecution, we would have heard the answers. Similarly, if it had held any exculpatory value to the accused it would doubtless have been pursued by Edwards’ defence team. Both sides are represented by lawyers of the highest calibre and the integrity of the trial is protected by a highly credentialed and experienced judge. His role is to ensure that it is conducted in the public interest, fairly and according to law. The community can rest assured that any unanswered questions or ostensibly unresolved issues would have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused man, as fascinating as they may appear. While the trial has a long way to go, the ultimate issue for the court will be what it makes of the direct, circumstantial and propensity evidence that has largely already been led or foreshadowed. The chance of any trump card, or even a surprise twist emerging, is remote.