I think it is possible that Bird could tell Zappia 'XYZ happened', then Zappia could be subpoeanead and be asked in court "What did Bird tell you when you met at the following time".
Obviously, someone testifying that the accused admiited guilt to them, or something like that, isn't conclusive, but it is very powerful and persuasive.
Maybe that question would be met with an objection!
Unless special circumstances exist, if you have nothing to hide, I cant see why you wouldnt make a statement to the cops, the media and the club.
It is of course possible that even if something did happen by accident, you can still get charged with something you never thought about The road laws are a fertile area for these types of things.
The safest course is to shut up. Thats the best advice and thats what he's done. Unfortuantely the price to pay is speculation, innuendo and a number of people who consider his guilty before any facts are established to support that.
If the cops never get it wrong, nobody would win their cases against them. Which is not to put them in a bad light, they have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job to do.
They spend a lot of time dealing with life's unfortunates and idiots. And some of them might say,
'and then we have to deal with the public!"
This is a big celebrity case, the cops will do what they can. They engage some very elite legal minds, they have unlimited resources.
D is the defendant in a sexual assault trial. W has made a statement to the police that X told W that X had seen D leave a night club with the victim shortly before the sexual assault is alleged to have occurred. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, evidence of what X told W cannot be given at the trial.
