Looking for an interesting topic to research? Try “alibi defense.” As I researched this topic for my current novel, I couldn’t help but be struck by its application to the Stacey Burns murder trial, if there ever should be one. Basically, this defense strategy says that the crime could not have been committed by the defendant because he or she was somewhere other than at the crime scene when the crime was committed.
This defense, it is said, depends largely on the ability of the alibi witnesses to withstand the cross-examination of the prosecutor. Of course, all of this presumes that someone has been brought to trial for the particular crime. We all know that is not the case in the murder of Stacey Burns. Apparently, the alibis of key people close to this case have proven to be solid. At least, we would presume this to be true.
My question is this: Given the fact that one has a physical alibi, one that says he/she could not have committed the crime because it is documented that they were somewhere else at the time, does that automatically mean that the person had nothing to do with the crime? In other words, just because they were not there, could they still have been involved? (See my last post, “Murder for hire”)
Just wondering, but once again, we can all be confident that this angle of the Stacey Burns murder has been thoroughly investigated by the authorities and dismissed at a possibility, right?