posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:29 PM
Well for one, did anyone else go inside the house? Was the window or doors left unlocked afterward? Anyone could have went in and taken the coins.
The best defence in my opinion is the character of the defendant. Does he work, come from a wealthy household, etc. Did he have any reason to steal
the coins in the first place?
And the rest of the defence should come from the lawyer, questioning the detectives and the owner. So you didn't find my clients fingerprints in the
room where the theft occurred! You didn't actually see him take the coins! The only thing linking my client is that he used the restroom! My client
doesn't even have the coins in his possession!
Problem being if it's a breaking and entering charge, that might stick. Unless, person A leaves it to person B, which means they have the say in how
the property is going to be looked after. Then person B says it's ok to pop the window open, working as the representative for person A.
Seems shaky even in that regard because sounds like person A said you can use the pool, not bust open my window to take a leak, (or get my coins
Would be best if something could be reached outside of court. Even if the coins weren't stolen, the defendant has the incentive to cover the cost of
them so charges are not prosecuted as a monetary value on that would most likely outweigh whatever the coins are worth.
In this case it sounds like coins may never have been stolen though. Did person C offer to fix the window and cover the cost? Because if not, they are
edit on 13-6-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)