For me, having some direct experience w methods of defense attorneys thanks to my ex-h, what I see is a defense strategy that is entirely the creation of the defense attorney with the sole purpose of inspiring reasonable doubt rather than actually getting at the truth of the case.
IMO SM is not capable of participating in his defense bcs this is Barth's premise and conceit, not his. Simply put, "ricky, you are accused of taking the cookie from the cookie jar. Whether you did take the cookie or not is irrelevant. Let's talk about who else had access to the cookie jar and whether or not there's any proof positive that you took that cookie."
IMO Barth is very good at putting on the act of disputing the premise of the pros by suggesting multiple other possible scenarios (and even getting others to testify to them.) while that may make him a good defense lawyer it doesn't bring forth the truth. MOO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk