Thus far and for awhile longer, we only have the Crown version of events, based in a large part by the questionable testimony of TLM. and we have a broad outlline of where the defense theory may lead.
The Crown will produce more evidence to support the charges, and then the defense will begin their case on behalf of the accused.
I am surprised at this point, that Mr. Derstine hasn't put up much opposition, or asked many questions of Crown witnesses, but thus far the Crown witnesses haven't particularly hurt the alternate theory advanced by the defense.........so why would he take issue with it?
I am also surprised in the testimony of today..........where Derstine questioned the placement of several things on the map drawn by McClintic. The jury was at the scene..........and Mr. Derstine is a smart guy. I doubt he would argue something that the jurors themselves would know to be false.
The testimony of the pathologist seemed to bolster the defense theory more than the Crowns. It was his professional opinion as an expert, and both the Crown and defense acknowledged him as an expert, there was no evidence of a sexual assault.
He couldn't say an assault never took place, but only that there was no evidence that it did. That testimony didn't particularly aid the Crown, who do have to prove that a sexual assault took place. IMO.
At this point, I think it impossible to make a judgement on guilt or innocence, but feel the Crown still has a long ways to go to meet the threshold of proof of guilt (which as I understand it includes "intent") beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is especially true, knowing the defense will be given a chance to refute all the evidence presented by the Crown and they will make an impact, however large or small. JMO
