[cyncooper]

That isn't the testimony, either--that they were only visible with dye via microscope. There were two photos introduced, one with dye and one without. The dye and magification were to enhance the ability to see, but they were not invisible.

I am guessing the prosecution will try to show that the two 1 centimeter (not tiny, imo) and "too many to count" 1 mm tears were the source.

That has not been the specific testimony, and I'm not arguing it definitely was. Just perceiving that's where they're headed.

[cyncooper]

1mm should read 1-2mm tears

[Howlin]

That isn't the testimony, either--that they were only visible with dye via microscope. There were two photos introduced, one with dye and one without. The dye and magification were to enhance the ability to see, but they were not invisible.

Here is the DIRECT quote from the judge:

"Photographs of the larger lacerations were admitted into evidence. Both photographs were magnified and one was taken after the application of tolidine blue dye after the alleged victim had a speculum exam."

Nowhere does it say that they were visible to the naked eye; nowhere.

[ArmstedFragg]

That isn't the testimony, either-

And, just for the record, they weren't vaginal tears.