The complainant has not made any first-hand written statement of any details of actual events. All the prosecution has, so far, is second or third-hand written statements that “contain” “information” gained through a standard interview process.
Unless the complainant or I provide you with specific details of our own perception of what actually occurred behind closed doors, you really have nothing to form your own perceptions of what went on other than a few scanty details.
How can you prove that what you may believe went on in there, based on your own interpolation between those exiguous “data points” is anything like what really happened? You must be careful to not let your own imagination fill in the missing pieces of your own internal mental pictures.
There are “relevant facts” not reported in the “evidential” discovery document. Language is not a perfect representation of the world we experience. We all do our best to accurately profile the world as we see it, and to use language to our best ability and advantage to portray it as we want others to see it. Every time someone relates a story to another person there is enormous potential for information loss and systematic distortion.
This begins with errors of fact, errors of omission, and systematic errors introduced due to language skill level on the part of the first party, who's story is being taken down and written up by a second party who did not actually physically witness the events being obtained from the first party. Thus, the second party has no way of knowing any detail of events not specifically mentioned by the first party, not given in response to directed questions, imagined, or assumed. Questions asked by interviewers interested in finding out that a crime has been committed are exactly the sort of directed question that would obtain only “relevant facts”.
But nobody other than the person answering the question or making their voluntary statement can know for certain what errors of fact, of omission, or of interpolation are present or absent in what they've said or not said. Nobody knows if there is a specific bias, hidden agenda, or simply poor language skills involved. Errors introduced by language and communication are often overlooked; or deliberately created.
When all you know for sure are a few “relevant facts”, that's all you can officially report... And when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Or when all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer? I'm not feeling comfortable with that, but what do I know, outside of what I've been given to believe? Care to interpolate?
“Scribble, Scribble, Scribble...”