I've just realised why I found the family evidence confusing. The prosecution seemed to be cross-examining them to show their evidence was untruthful, even though they didn't say this was during the defence case. The witness today was a prosecution witness, so I think the crown must have applied to have the family members declared hostile witnesses so that they could cross-examine them as if they were defence witnesses.
I had wondered if it meant they had moved onto the defence case already whether FB won't be testifying since the defendant always goes first, but it must still be the prosecution case.
I had wondered if it meant they had moved onto the defence case already whether FB won't be testifying since the defendant always goes first, but it must still be the prosecution case.
