What an interesting read this thread has been.
I believe that I can clarify at least one point:
It is agreed by both parties that Mr Hunter's evidence was "read" in Court and he was not called as a witness. This means that the evidence he presented was accepted as being entirely accurate by both parties in Court. This is the only way in which evidence can be admitted "in chief" by reading and the witness not called for cross-examination. Therefore, in the eyes of the Prosecution, the Defence, the Judge and the Jury, what Mr Hunter expressed in his witness statement was not in question.
