What fatally weakened the prosecution was the testimony of his mother. The defence persuaded Justice Cameron that the boy's testimony was obtained under duress, as a result of his mother's wanting more money. Justice Armour had rejected this notion in the first trial, but Cameron's decision to accept it meant that the prosecution had little chance. Mrs. O’Conner's testimony fell apart when she failed to accurately tell her boy's correct age, and she was also unable to give a clear explanation for her recent trip to Toronto to visit with the Deputy Attorney General. McMahon used this to show the jury that she was trying to secure more money for the boy's testimony, because her family was struggling to survive after their house had been burnt down. This made her lose her temper and she arrived on the stand already upset after a dispute with fellow witness Mrs. Pat Whalen. She should have explained clearly that her family did need more money and that the provincial bureaucrats were unwilling to provide this, and that was unrelated to the Crown prosecution. Reaney speculates that the bureaucrats did not want to aid a friend of the Donnellys. Mrs. O’Conner's testimony did not go over well and ended any chances the prosecution might have had, with judge, jury and public opinion already at least leaning if not outright against them.