I've tried to play devils advocate from the minute I started following the case....much to the annoyance of other members (LOL) But these opening statements were way too much.
I've always attempted to view the evidence through a jurors eyes, with all the legal restrictions, and without the propaganda..... But this was far worse than the media speculation we've heard over nearly 3 years.
JB says there was too much speculation, then actually tells the jury they need to speculate on certain things. WTH?
JB impressed me with his ability to get through the opening statements with purpose and conviction (though it did waver at times), and without the usual uhms and ah's every few seconds. It made him appear confident and maybe even experienced <shudder>.
He brought up a lot of the little holes/questions I thought should be addressed, and if he had focused solely on those issues I would feel differently.
But I was floored that he really did go for the spaghetti defense that we've all joked about.
Talk about desperation! The whole defense is a mirror image of the very behaviour that made so many people question ICA. Too many different stories. No personal responsibility.Deny, blame, deflect..talk in circles, make excuses and still nothing adds up.
So I have to answer a very firm YES to the OP's question.
The defense has managed to change my mind about ICA's guilt. I have gone from being as neutral as possible to now being 100% convinced that ICA murdered Caylee.
And that's just from the DT's opening statements!!! Nice work JB :clap: