Let me see if I get this judges reasoning straight. There is evidence, in the form of this video, that might help establish her guilt, so the judge won’t allow it. Why allow any evidence for the prosecution then? Why not ban all “inflammatory” evidence that points to her guilt and stands in the way of a fair trial. Evidently this judge thinks a fair trial is one in which the defendant has no evidence against them at all.
It may have been because the ‘evidence’ was an action that took place many months after the suspected crime and therefore not linked to the crime itself. It would also be considered an act of self-incrimination. These are just theories, not opinion................
“that might help establish her guilt”
It isn’t the courts job to ensure a guilty verdict. It is to ensure a fair trial. One of those responsbilities is to ensure any evidence for which there is no context should never be shown to the jury.