just curious what legal argument they could have made against the letters? They did agree that the letters are authentic (or was that only after legal arguments were exhausted?). As a layperson I find it frustrating when defence lawyers are able to have evidence excluded, though I can accept that it is part of a system that guarantees our rights.
My guess is that when the letters were presented, and DM's defence had no more opportunity to have them ruled inadmissible, they gave up their thus-far weak defence of 'he was a rich guy', 'he was generous to everyone', 'he had nothing to hide', 'he's from a good family'.. and started concentrating on how they will get their appeal. Interesting how each one of those weak defences has been shown to be false. Yes, he *had* money, but yet he was seemingly in financial trouble, and yes, he may have come across as generous, but yet closer examination revealed that it was more promises of generosity than actual generosity, and how he was not hiding things sometimes, but then shown to jump through hoops to hide things when he knew police were on to him, and yes, the Millard name *was* a good name, at least until he killed off his dad. Not much to work with there, and now RP is seen as being a less-than lawyer. The best he could do was get all that he could, ruled inadmissible, and that he seemed to do very well... can't wait to hear all the things that were withheld.