Reaney comes to the conclusion that the prosecution side was hampered throughout the trial as their only hard evidence was the testimony of young O’Conner. While the boy did an admirable job of recollecting the events in a clear manner, Justice Cameron's continual sustaining of the defense's objections hindered the prosecution. This leads Reaney and others to conclude that Cameron was steering the trial in the defense's favor. As a result, much of the evidence that the prosecution presented to help the boy's account was not admitted. Cameron accepted the defense's assertion that the testimony from the O’Conner boy was unreliable and instructed the jury as such, thus giving the prosecution little chance of securing a guilty verdict. This applied in particular to the question of what Johnny O’Conner could have seen if the valances on the bed had been in position. His declaration that they had been removed became a point of debate within the trial, as the London Advertiser recalls. Justice Cameron's instruction to the jury that Johnny's testimony was unreliable eliminated the hard evidence the prosecution needed.