And you’re missing the fact THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. An innocent person doesn’t have to defend their innocence and he is deemed that until proven guilty. Which means, he’s allowed to keep his mouth shut while the crown presents their evidence (which in this case was the victims testimony). You can’t…

It’s fundamentally unfair that the defense is not constrained from calling anybody they can ask to testify, yet the prosecution is constrained in who they can ask.

Because he doesn’t have to prove his innocence. It’s what a ton of people forget in cases like this. The crown must prove his guilt. If his lawyers feel like they haven’t proved his guilt, why put him on the stand?