Even though Ian Griffiths, one of the co-accused, remains "at large" - in the Prosecution's eyes (he's actually in the south of England) - and his partner Bella Santos is out on bail, their trial lumbers on in the Cebu court room. This despite the fact that no attempt has been made to extradite him even though senior Prosecutors claimed - almost two years ago - that such a request was about to be made. He is, in effect, being tried in his absence. Much to the Prosecution's disappointment, all their witnesses have had their credibility as witnesses effectively destroyed and one of whom who has previous convictions should never have been allowed to testify! One of their more recent witnesses, a Police photographer, was unable to prove the date and time that he took crime scene photographs and that he in fact took them! More recently we have learned that the Prosecution is searching for "a suitable witness" in their third attempt to introduce new witnesses as it struggles to keep its case alive. The Prosecution has stated that it additionally intends to present Angie Bautista, the younger sister of Algen Bautista who was their first witness. Angie was to have been called much earlier but she refused to testify so it is likely she is being pressured by the Prosecution (and possibly her family also as they would get a decent chunk of reward money should Griffiths and Santos be convicted). Back in 2011, the Naga Prosecutor refused to charge the couple with offences regarding alleged child pornography but the private Prosecutors are now seeking to include this aspect in the trial. This arises out of the Judge's comments made when she granted Santos bail, that the Prosecution had failed to cast any light on where Ellah Joy was held between the time she was abducted at 4pm and her death some seven hours later. At a much earlier hearing before a different Judge, the couple's computer system and a USB memory stick were examined by an "expert" in the presence of the Judge and lawyers from both camps. Absolutely nothing of an incriminating nature was found on either the computer's hard drive nor on the USB memory stick. However, Prosecutors are now asking for that memory stick to be re-examined in court. On the basis that lawyers tend to ask questions that they already know the (correct) answers to, this may not be a simple fishing exercise. And that raises the question: has someone had access to that USB memory stick after it was examined in RTC 13 two years ago? One thing is clear: the Prosecution knows its case against Griffiths and Santos is weak and unlikely to succeed - otherwise the Judge would not have granted Santos bail as child abduction and murder are both non-bailable offences. The Prosecution probably realises that as soon as it rests its case, the Defence will file motions for dismissal of all charges which may well succeed. It therefore needs to keep its side of the case going for as long as possible in the hope that some of the mud it is slinging at the defendants will stick.