You keep saying no proof, no proof, but I and 16 jurors disagree.
As far as postulating on what's typical - I was simply responding in kind to a post that claimed that it's not typical to carry a humidor in the car.
Look, I'm very well aware that every single piece of evidence can be met with an explanation or rationalization or excuse. We all saw Jason do this in his second trial when he tried to account for every bit of minutiae presented I the states case in chief. Of course one can ALWAYS come up with some wild a$$ explanation about every particle of dust in the mountain of circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't mean those explanations are believable.
It's not like Jason has a history and reputation for honesty and integrity. He has a history of lying and cheating and sneaking around in order to do exactly as he pleases, without burdening himself with any concerns for the effects of his behavior on anyone else. Why exactly would anyone believe him without corroboration?
BBM. I wouldn't and I don't. You just hit the nail on the head. Who is around to corroborate anything he says other than his family? His mother got flustered on the stand on cross examination. I wouldn't want to be in that position but it was a window into the way she thinks. And I do think she would protect her son at any cost.
Thanks for all your insightful posts.