<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="80%" bgcolor="#dcdcdc" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" bgcolor="#DCDCDC"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#eeeeee"><font size="1">that's not what the prosecutor said. the prosecutor said maybe, even though the phone record showed the call being half an hour long, they might not have talked the whole entire time. maybe while the phone was connected, Yan Yan was really talking to the teddy bear while Ivan was committing the murder, just left the line open in order to establish the alibi. he also tried to show that Yan Yan lacked the ability to judge the location of the accused from the background noise. Her mom was only in the room for a brief second before Yan Yan kicked her out of the room and closed the door, so she could talk secrets with Ivan, and therefore the mom could not have been a valid witness.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not the way evidence works in court. Evidence is there to support a case. Evidence is used to judge whether someone is guilty or not. It isn't there to be disproven. Otherwise all evidence could be argued against. You could say just because the knife was in your boot, that doesn't mean you are the killer. Or just because the witness said they saw such and such doesn't necessarily mean they are telling the truth. Just because the murder weapon has your prints on it, doesn't mean you are the one who killed does it? However that isn't how it works. The evidence states that you are the killer, even if you aren't. You have to find other proof that you aren't, otherwise you're gone. Evidence doesn't need to be proven totally, just presented.
That's why people get framed so easily. If you get framed, they look at evidence that isn't in your favor, and on that basic accuse you of the crime. To prove yourself innocent, you don't go on arguing against the evidence. You gotta find OTHER evidence that goes against it, because you can't always prove if the evidence is correct or not. If you can't find evidence that you are innocent, then you are guilty, even though the evidence that was against you was fake and doesn't prove you did it. There was no other evidence to go by, so they have to go by that. Making claims against evidence can help, but it isn't going to get you far, because you have nothing to base it on. Unless you can prove the evidence is fake (the lawyer could not prove YanYan's testimony was false).
That sounds confusing, but basically it's all about finding evidence. A witness' testimony is evidence. The lawyer was trying to pick on Yan Yan, but he can't prove what she was saying isn't true. It's POSSIBLE what she was saying isn't true. He was only trying to dampen her credibility (which is a valid tactic). You would need to find other evidence.
Anyway, not all parts of GF are totally realistic. Especially Boon's trunk not being locked.