I’m sure there is much more to come out that will reinforce the case for the prosecution. There are some things that I’m questioning at this early stage though so I’m just running through my thoughts: The quick timeframe - 300 odd metres to the river and 300 odd back to the car. Is it even possible to get to the river and back in that time - in the dark? knowing what was happening she wouldn’t have just gone willingly, and if she was unconscious due to having been attacked, that’s going to take even more time. Was there cctv of them getting out of the car by the park? The fact that he came back to the park again later on - it will be interesting to hear when/if he says they consensual sex at which visit to the park this occurred. What did he come back for if he had carried out an attack and murder the first visit? Did he just carry out the attack the first visit and came back to dispose of the body? Did he leave her alive but unconscious in the middle of the park and come back to kill her? I want to know what he says. He is likely to say they had consensual sex and he left her alive - she was going to make her own way home. Of course, no one would leave a vulnerable woman alone in a park in the middle of winter unless they were truly wicked. Sadly, people do end up having misadventures when drunk, distressed, agitated and disorientated. It isn’t always suicide. This is likely to be be a defence argument.