This is the exact same question my mind has been wrestling with ever since I heard the defences theory. I think there would have been some sort of evidence for the charge other than TLM's word, but then another part of me says why would the defence put out a theory like that if there was evidence of it. I guess we have to be a little more patient before we get the answer to this, hopefully within the next week we will know what forensic evidence they have against the accused.
I don't know why it's expected that there has to be forensic DNA to prove the sexual assaults when there is direct witness evidence and a lot of circumstantial evidence to prove it. There is direct evidence presented already that the motive for this crime was sexual. There is no evidence, direct or otherwise to suggest any other motive.
I guess this is what they call the "CSI effect". Victoria's body was left out in the elements for almost 31/2 months. The chances of any DNA evidence of anything other than what may have been in her system such as drugs is slim to none IMO.
But the circumstantial evidence of an assault is there, with more to come. So is the direct witness evidence. The visit today is going to show the jury that TLM must have been walking around the area for some time and taking in her surroundings to give such a detailed description. When that might have been, however, will be up to them to determine with the evidence presented.
Put all the evidence puzzle pieces together and determine logically what makes the most sense. That's what the jury will be required to do. Because somehow, Victoria Elizabeth Stafford ended up deceased, without clothing from the waist down, under that rock pile. We did have sexual assault and murder trials long before the science of DNA was invented. And people were convicted based on other forms of evidence.
To suggest that only DNA evidence can prove a crime is a dangerous slope that our criminal justice system may be slipping down IMO. Now if Victoria's body was somehow preserved well enough that forensics can absolutely rule in a sexual assault, or rule one out, then that is a different story. And that is why the science is an important breakthrough in the case of an innocent person being convicted.
But somehow I'm not expecting any conclusive DNA or forensic evidence that can either rule in or rule out a sexual assault. I can't see Derstine going ahead with this trial if it can absolutely be ruled in and I can't see the Crown proceeding if it can absolutely be ruled out. So this case, IMO, is going to have to be resolved the old fashioned way.
MOO
