You must also make allowances for the fact that from the defendant's point of view the longer the time since an alleged incident, the more difficult it may be for him to answer it. For example, has the passage of time deprived him of the chance to account more fully for his movements in those crucial days in mid July of 1976. You will remember that in his 1997 interviews with the police Mr. Park complained that the statement that he made in 1976 at the time of Mrs. Park's disappearance had gone missing. Could he earlier perhaps have produced to you a radio of the type that Jeremy Park remembered sitting on the back of that car shelf when they went to Blackpool? Could he have shown the admission tickets to the fun fair which could flesh out the account that he gave the police and to you?
Those are only three examples and there may of course be others. Could the 1976 missing person file have given you further details helpful to the defendant which are not there? You have only got to imagine, I suspect, what it would be like to have to answer questions about events which have taken place over 28 years ago in your own lives to appreciate the problems that are faced when so much time has passed, and glancing at your number, I suspect some of you have not had 28 years to experience.
You may think of course that the lapse of time is not surprising, given the circumstances in which Mrs. Park's remains remained hidden for so long. If, however, you decide that because of all the years that have passed that this defendant has been placed at a real disadvantage in putting forward his case, take that into account in his favour in deciding if the prosecution has made you sure of guilt.