Should the Bain jury have heard the 'alibi' witness statement?

The paper run story while at High School. The three witnesses on 60 minutes who were never seen or heard. All the hearsay, that was heard. Would you like to sit on a murder trial in this country in a jury, as it stands at this time? I wouldn't.

Young males are known for saying a lot of dumb things and for making up outrageous schemes. How many of males have not plotted ways to see naked women, or talked about revenge scenarios on their nemesis of the day (a work colleague, partner, or school bully)? Some young males (I am told) engage in fantasies of bondage, or even blasting away their own human enemies with machine guns or bombs. Doesn't necessarily mean they would ever do it. Just another perspective on that subject.

This item is not actual evidence - it is hearsay and therefore inadmissable.

I am at a loss as to why this was suppressed. This evidence seems to be factual, yet evidence given by the defence which be-smirched the dead members of the family, who could , of course, not defend themselves, was allowed , and at best was hearsay. The murdered family have had the final indignity of their reputations questioned without defence.

Surely, in a trial such as that of David Bain, the jury was entitled to hear the totality of the evidence, not just the bits which it suited the 'agendas' of the various counsel to be heard.