No matter what the feelings about JW, he's a prosecution witness. He's been investigated and his story verified by homicide detectives. We can second guess him but it is what it is.
The defense can try to discredit him but Bach gave notice that he's not involved any further than receiving a message from his boss to meet someone, pick up a package and deliver it and he did so.
IMO Ago is going to focus on trying to say there was sloppy crime scene management, cross contamination, lab errors...that route
I reread the whole darn thing again. I was paying special attention to where Bach would have said that in redirect. But I couldn't find anywhere where she said that, or anything like that. She DID ask Owens if JW's accounting of his whereabouts was corroborated and generally how it was corroborated. (The answer wasn't particularly strong: it was corroborated by JW's own account and cell phone pings. However, according to Owens, no inconsistencies were discovered.) Is this what you were interpreting as her giving notice?:
Q Did W-1 provide law enforcement with a full
accounting of where he was on May 13th and 14th?
A Yeah.
Q And has that been corroborated?
A Yes.
MR. AGO: Your Honor, I would object, the Court
prevented me from exploring this.
THE COURT: Not completely, counsel. Objection's
overruled.
BY MS. BACH:
Q Just generally through what sources has it been
corroborated?
A Through himself and his phone, the locations of his
phone being used.
Q Have you found anything that is inconsistent with
his account of his whereabouts?
A No.
Q Have you learned anything in your investigation to
show that he was at the Savopoulos home on May 13th and 14th
other than during that short timeframe when he delivered the
cash?
A Repeat the question.
Q Sure. Other than the short period of time on May
13th and 14th when W-1 delivered the cash did you find any
evidence indicating that he was at the home any other time on
those two days?
A To deliver the cash on May 14th, that short period
of time, no.