Not to sure of that, I remember commenting at the time, one of the true crimes following police investigations, 24 hrs in Police custody if memory serves, the police said the data meant nothing if the owner claimed his brother who also lived in the area in question said he used the phone, its not cut and dried by a long shot which to his chagrin Wolters is finding no doubt.
Doesn't change the fact that the onus still falls on the accused to prove they didn't have the phone. In your example, the brother would be required to testify that he was the one using the phone and the court would judge based on the credibility of his account. The court wouldn't just take the accused's word for it, otherwise everyone would just use that excuse. It's the same logic for any item belonging to the accused that has been placed at a crime scene. CB's hair on the cat excuse didn't go down too well with the judge so I think he'll need something better for this.
If CB has someone willing to testify they were using his phone, the judge may accept the account. But it doesn't appear anybody has come forward to put their hand up for that yet. Maybe Amaral will.
