You are asked by company XYZ Pty Ltd to investigate Mr Long Fingers, for the loss of money under suspicious circumstances. Evidence obtained is a photostat copy of a letter to the suspect (Long Fingers) by his bank manager, enquiring about a large amount of cash that was deposited. There was also a person (Ms Sharp), who had read the original letter before handing it to the suspect. A day before she passed away, (Ms Sharp) told another person (Mr Ears) about it. You asked the suspect for the original letter from the bank, but his answer was that he had lost it. On which terms will the copy of the letter from the bank and the evidence from (Mr Ears) be admissible?

Still busy with your investigation on the theft charges against Mr Long Fingers, you want to proof that a reply to the bank, confirming the deposit of the money, was in the handwriting of the accused. You interviewed a colleague of the suspect, mrs Diligent, who worked with him for five years. She told you that she had for the last ten years, and quite apart from her normal work, given considerable study and attention to handwriting. She had on several occasions professionally compared handwriting but had never given evidence on handwriting. How will you go about getting the evidence of this witness (Mrs Diligent), to be admissible?

You also obtained an affidavit from Mrs Long Fingers, the wife of the suspect, in which she stated that she saw her husband one evening, coming home with a suitcase full of cash. When she confronted him, he replied that he just took the money from his employer, because they are not paying him enough. Discuss the admissibility of the evidence of Mrs Long Fingers.