The judge in the Bloody Sunday murder trial has said he will rule on Thursday whether to dismiss the case against Soldier F.
It follows a two-day defence submission that the former paratrooper had no case to answer.
Soldier F is accused of two counts of murder and five of attempted murder.
He has been granted anonymity by the court.
The charges relate to the events of 31 January 1972 when civil rights protesters were fired on by the military in Derry.
It comes after the court heard that evidence relied on by the prosecution in the case against the former British soldier is deeply flawed.
Soldier F is accused of the murder of 22-year-old Jim Wray and 26-year-old William McKinney and the attempted murder of five others.
They were among a crowd of civil rights protesters who were fired on by the military at the end of a demonstration in the city.
Thirteen people were shot dead, a 14th died later.
This afternoon, the prosecution countered the earlier defence submissions.
Louis Mably KC for the prosecution said the evidence against Soldier F was "not unconvincing" and there was "a case to answer".
He said inconsistencies in the soldiers' statements could be explained by the paratroopers trying to get their stories straight in the aftermath of the shooting in Glenfada Park North.
He accepted that there were "unsatisfactory elements" in both how the statements were taken by military police and the content of them.
But Mr Mably said they contained a "core of consistency" in relation to the fact that Soldier F had opened fire.
He said it was wrong to say the civilian evidence supported the contention that only one soldier had used his weapon.
He said people had been caught up in a "chaotic situation" where many of them were "running for their lives".
Some had described soldiers opening fire in different ways.
Mr Mably said it did not follow that all the civilians were talking about the same soldier.
He said it was "simply implausible" to suggest that the civilian evidence indicated that only a single soldier had opened fire.
The prosecution is relying on statements by a number of fellow paratroopers who were with Soldier F on the day.
They were taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
The prosecution said they show that Soldier F opened fire in Glenfada Park North where a number of people were shot dead.
The prosecution’s case is that the firing was "unjustified, unnecessary and gratuitous".
But in the course of an application to have the case dismissed, the defence argued that the statements could not be trusted.
Mark Mulholland KC said Soldier G, was one of two soldiers whose account was being relied on.
But he claimed that Soldier G's account was "flawed" and that there had been several versions which had changed when it came to what he said about who opened fire in Glenfada Park North.
Mr Mulholland said there'd been an "obvious dilution" across several statements.
In the first, Soldier G said Soldier F had opened fire.
In a later one he said he "assumed" Soldier F had opened fire.
Mr Mulholland said civilian evidence supported the contention that all the shooting could be attributed to the first soldier who arrived into Glenfada Park North.
Mr Mulholland said that soldier was Soldier G who is now dead.
Soldier G later admitted there were inaccuracies in his statements.
Mr Mulholland said he had been "backtracking in each account".
The accounts, which had been taken within a couple of months of each other, were "fundamentally at odds with one another, fundamentally flawed and self-contradictory".
He said it "beggared belief" that Soldier G's account could be considered to be in any way believable.
The case continues.
