Thank you for the readings on the denial of the defense’s motion to acquit. I believe the trial chamber’s premise was adequate in allowing the case to continue. The current amendment of the rule that is inforce did not require the jurists to consider the reasonable doubt standard but maintained an application of the standard of capability of the evidence to support a conviction. Hence if the majority of the jurist viewed that the evidence as provided could support conviction using any of the media, then a precedent has be set for the standard of capability of evidence to be judiciously applied as anticipated. I strongly believe that the trial chamber did due deligence in rendering its decision.

On the other hand, I believe it was premature given the magnitude of this case, the level of evidence that the prosecution submitted and the expectation of the public to grant an acquittal solely on the premise of the defense’s argument. In view of the current amendment to rule 98 an acquittal would have been interpreted as the prosecution’s evidence was not sufficient to withstand the standard being capable to support a conviction. I believe that the defense acknowledged that defects in the prosecution case supports the reasonable doubt standard which was not under consideration here.

The last point I would like to make is that I do not believe ths simplicity of the trial chamber’s ruling undermined the quality of opinion that is expected in this case. I believe that the limited context of the ruling favors the defense in that it had the grounds to provide convincing evidence that could vindicate Taylor and establish his innocence.

Had the trial chamber evaluated rule 98 applicability to other media of liability and exonerated the accused, the public would have missed the quality of the defense proceeding that we are witnessing now.

Again, thank you Tracey.