I think he did a pretty fair job.
In my opinion his goal (or strategy) is to redefine (in the jury's mind) the standard of proof the prosecution is expected to meet. He keeps repeated loaded language and phrases that, while technically correct semantically, are deliberately deceptive.
The recap he is offering, coupled with the narrative above, is designed to allow him to hammer this fallacy home. Further, while some here find it laughable, I believe that his charts have been well employed. When he removed all the images on the one side of the who smelled what chart, the couple pictures remaining looked mighty lonely. It was nonsense of course, but crafty nonsense.
The guy is smart. He is doing a lot with the little that he has. That's his JOB.
Fortunately I do not believe that it will be enough. The prosecution is going to have a the final word, and it is going to be devistating.
Sorry, have to disagree just a bit. His JOB is to know and understand the Florida laws and the rules of evidence. Even after 3 years of on the job training, he still doesn't know. Doesn't matter how many time he says something wrong, it won't make it right. I'm sure that the judge and the prosecution will set it all straight though. JB's chart of who smelled what when would be great if he had the facts right. The date the two young folks rode in KC's car was the week before the murder. Tony testified that he wasn't real near the trunk but closer to the front. So, magnetic pictures are great but I bet the jurors who were taking notes will remember. If they do, they may discount everything he said. I think he did a dreadful job not just during his closing but all the way through. IMVHO I think he needs to go back to selling swim suits and forget about lawyering all together.
Your post makes me feel better. I was confused/did not remember exactly when Maria or the one had rode in the car, so I was thinking it was AFTER the murder and I was really worrying about that.
I am also worrying about the dribble JB is going to spew about the number of times Chloroform was searched...but I am still confident that the SA will come back and stomp all over the DT's closing arguements.
I voted 1, but I'd like to say that I don't pity this fool. He had nearly three years to prepare this defense. He wasn't handed this case at the last minute. He came across as bumbling, incompetent, and very patronizing toward the jury. His constant throwing of others under the bus infuriates me, and I can't believe that he again tried to go with his completely unfounded and delusional theory that the state was out to get Casey. Ridiculous, IMO.
IIRC, didn't he say in the media at various times throughout the last couple of years that when this case went to trial, we'd all be able to completely understand all of Casey's lies and actions? I understand none of her actions at all. He's cleared nothing up for me, other than making me even more convinced of her guilt. I'd say his entire defense was a big FAIL.
MOO
Sorry, have to disagree just a bit. His JOB is to know and understand the Florida laws and the rules of evidence. Even after 3 years of on the job training, he still doesn't know. Doesn't matter how many time he says something wrong, it won't make it right. I'm sure that the judge and the prosecution will set it all straight though. JB's chart of who smelled what when would be great if he had the facts right. The date the two young folks rode in KC's car was the week before the murder. Tony testified that he wasn't real near the trunk but closer to the front. So, magnetic pictures are great but I bet the jurors who were taking notes will remember. If they do, they may discount everything he said. I think he did a dreadful job not just during his closing but all the way through. IMVHO I think he needs to go back to selling swim suits and forget about lawyering all together.
Pictures are ofter more powerful than words. He successfully showed a picture to the jury in which "those who smelled nothing" vastly outnumbered those who did. Of course it is ludicrous when you THINK about it, his explanation made no sense at all, but that's not really the point. The point was the image.
NOTE: My 'defense' of JB is completely unrelated to my conclusions about this case. I am doing my best to be objective. JB's JOB is to defend ICA. That's our system.
I think JB is probably a fine lawyer. I don't know what people expect from him or anyone else when the evidence is so overwhelming. If ICA's head started spinning around, green pea soup flying, I think pretty much everyone would shrug and say "Well yeah, kinda expected that, the B*#%@ is EVIL!"
And if that happened, and for all intents and purposes it pretty much did, JB's job would be to get up there and claim that at least SOME people thought it looked more like Avocado dip than soup.