The Crown made its final submissions Monday in the protracted child pornography case of convicted pedophile David Caza.

Caza, 48, was charged after RCMP, acting on a tip from another law enforcement agency, searched his apartment at First Avenue and Columbia Street in January 2010.

They seized evidence, including DVDs, CDs and notebooks in the initial search, and later returned to seize a hard drive. The hardware contained thousands of graphic images and videos precisely catalogued and depicting sex with children.

Caza was charged with possession of child pornography and importing or distributing chlld pornography. As a result of further police investigation, he was charged with invitation to sexual touching with a person under 16 and communicating via computer to lure a child under 18.

Justice Robert Powers ruled in a voir dire Thursday that a police investigator, who was able to surreptitiously gain access to Caza’s computer via the Internet and without a warrant, did not violate the accused’s charter rights. Defence had argued that certain evidence should be inadmissible.

The trial, which has occupied 30 days in B.C. Supreme Court since it opened in February, is expected to wrap up this week.

Crown prosecutor Bernie Caffaro detailed evidence Monday supporting the charges. That evidence involved references in online chats, one specifically mentioning “kiddy porn.”

“You probably will never find a more clearly stated measure of intent than that,” Caffaro said.

Caffaro also pointed to casual references in online chats that pinpointed the residence of the accused. Caza often used different aliases online and with emails, most notably the alias paper123boy, used for his GigaTribe account. He also cross-referenced numerical codes found in Caza’s notebooks with child pornography stored on discs.

“There are many, many matches that can be seen there. Cross-referencing produced some of the more compelling evidence in the case.”

Asked by Powers to link evidence to the various charges, Caffaro conceded that evidence of luring and intent may be compromised by the unreliability of two key witnesses. Both witnesses admitted to memory problems. One witness saw the accused looking out his bathroom window, located across the street from a school playground, with binoculars.

“To put not too fine a point on it, normally somebody doesn’t need binoculars in a bathroom.”

Another witness, who befriended the accused and fixed his computer, was upset by what he saw on Caza’s computer monitor and immediately left the apartment at that point.

Caza has a criminal record with 42 convictions, eight of which are for sexual offences. He was convicted of sexual activity involving three teenage boys. He has twice been convicted of possessing child pornography.