I agree with this. If the "other item" that was also seized were the letters, it would have never been said that way. It would have been reported that other item(s) were seized. It wasn't just one letter, or one item, there were numerous letters.
If they were all together in a 'batch', I could see them noting them as another 'item'. It seems that the one officer found the DVR and the other officer found the letters. The Crown didn't want the first officer to mention the other 'item' because at that time in the trial, they were reviewing the DVR evidence, and wanted to save the letters for when CN could be questioned about them on the stand as the final Crown witness. Sounds reasonable? moo