The Crown does not have to prove where the victims were actually killed if there is no evidence to prove it either way. The Crown is entitled to put together their version of events based on the evidence that has been collected and the witnesses who will present it and wind it into a narrative, that makes sense, for the jury. Without any statement from the accused, why wouldn't they go with the working theory that it was his intent to kill them, it was no accident with any of them? Considering the planning involved, it sure appears that way. It would make no sense to try to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the least possible charges because they don't know. It's up to the jury to decide if he should be given the benefit of "doubt". And he didn't have to kill Nathan if his death wasn't part of the original plan. So killing him also became his intent. It only takes seconds to form intent and I'm pretty sure that Nathan did not represent any physical threat to him. I guess the experts are going to suggest that there was just not enough blood from any of the victims in the house to say definitively that one or more died there so they have to go with the assumption that all three may still have been alive when they were taken to the farm. Makes sense to me. And definitely warrant a first degree charge on all three of them.
It is up to the defence to counter the Crown's working theory with their own questions to the witnesses and possibly an alternative theory or just an obvious disagreement with what the Crown is proposing. Ultimately it is up to the jury to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence that is put before them. They can certainly reject the Crown's theory and go with one of their own if they choose when rendering their verdict. And they will be instructed that opening and closing statements are not evidence and should not factor into their own deliberations.
MOO
