I think the various comments by your Honours have pointed out the problems with this procedure: (1) Counsel is putting the map before the witness which ultimately results in leading the witness through the evidence; (2) As Justice Lussick has pointed out, the ideal procedure would be that the witness is in the presence of the Chamber so that there is no insinuation of some suggestibility, that somebody conveyed instructions to her on what she should map.
But also significant is the fact that these markings should be done while she is under oath. That was done outside the courtroom. She is not under oath when she makes these markings and they should be done whilst she has been sworn so that she can be held accountable if something untoward happens vis-a-vis a different account on a previous occasion. In the totality of the circumstances that is why there are all these questions about the propriety of this procedure.