I've been thinking about this for days, am sure its been said, but I still just have to get it out there.
JB keeps saying if they convict is must be "beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt." He keeps emphasizing BEYOND and EXCLUSION, what I think he's missing is the most important word REASONABLE....
Let's take yesterday - the "are you a chemist" line of questioning....who looks unreasonable?
The throwing out of sexal abuse allegations and not being able to back it up with one shred of evidence....heck, not even ask the question when GA was on the stand 10 minutes after you said it, and denied it. Not confronting LA....
Assuming GA found the dead girl, didn't call LE or attempt CPR but rather held her until CA came around the corner and then helped to cover it up????? Reasonable????
Evidence of a dead body in the trunk, CA the only one with possession of the car, the imaginary nanny, the stories from friends, the boyfriend, the pictures, the internet searches, the continued stories in the jailhouse tapes, and now behavior at trial. Very little doubt, and certainly no REASONABLE doubt.
....ahhhh, done venting!