The cellphone data
CROWN SAID: The cell tower closest to Merritt's house was Halfway Bush. His phone connected with that site whenever he was at the Kaikorai address.
At 1.34am on December 2 though, just minutes after Ms Ross was killed, Merritt's phone pinged off the Dunedin North cell tower.
Drive-testing by a Spark expert showed phones connected with that cell site only if they were on the city side of Highgate, because radio waves could not bend over hills.
DEFENCE SAID: The Crown did not test Merritt's Samsung Galaxy S6 and had no idea whether there was a malfunction in it.
When drive-testing how phones connected to the cell towers in Dunedin, a Spark expert used the S4 model, which could have operated differently to Merritt's phone.
The phone showed no activity to actually put Merritt at Strathallan St when the murder took place.
The forensic evidence
CROWN SAID: A hooded top, hammer, rag and glove found in the wheelie bin outside Merritt's house all had DNA on them one million million times more likely to belong to Ms Ross than anyone else.
Crucially, the hoodie also had DNA 500,000 million times more likely to have come from Merritt.
There was blood inside the burgundy Toyota Corona Merritt was driving, which was ''extremely likely'' to be the victim's, and a similar finding was made in relation to the defendant's shoes.
DNA on or under Ms Ross' fingernails was 430 times more likely to be Merritt's than anyone else's.
DEFENCE SAID: Because the Merritt home was not secured by police until two and a-half days after the death of Ms Ross, anyone could have put the items in the bin.
The defendant's DNA on the top could have come from any of the household waste also in the bin. Blood in the family's bathroom and in the car could have come from Sharon Merritt.
She was the one who found the victim dead and had blood on her hands, clothes and cellphone. If Merritt's DNA was under Ms Ross' fingernails, it could have happened when the pair handled the same items through work.
The work issues
CROWN SAID: Merritt had received notice from Spotless of disciplinary proceedings being initiated against him in the days leading up to the murder, and hours beforehand had heard details of a statement written by the victim detailing the allegations against him.
Because the documentation noted the outcome could be dismissal, this sent the defendant into a murderous rage. Merritt had told his closest associate at work previously that he wanted to burn Ms Ross' family in front of her and said ''it would be fine if she died''.
DEFENCE SAID: The only issue Merritt had was with the allegations raised by colleague Des Hurring, rather than those of Ms Ross. He denied swearing at him.
The defendant's father had spoken to him about the issue and Merritt had been ''calm'' during the discussion. Merritt may have said some impolite things about the victim but they were weeks before the killing and came after she had publicly shamed him in front of other employees.
What he said should be seen through the lens of a young man testing the boundaries during a run-of-the-mill dispute with his boss.
The scratches
CROWN SAID: When Ms Ross was attacked in the Spotless car park on Strathallan St she fought for her life and struck out at Merritt as he beat her, leaving scratches on his face and arms. It would be a huge coincidence for him to scratch himself on the same night his boss was killed.
DEFENCE SAID: Merritt scratched himself in his sleep. He suffered from eczema and had been known to scratch himself in the past. Coincidences happen.
- By Rob Kidd
