When this trial started, I felt sure that AM would be convicted. He's an addict with years of criming at a very high level; someone willing to steal millions from people who are sick, dying or in deep need for financial help is pretty much capable of anything--not to mention his legal partners I have no idea now, though. I've never seen anyone allowed to just ramble on and one and on in court. I'm baffled by what seems to go on there as a matter of course.
It comes down to two points, I think: First, the prosecution put on a strong case, showing that AM was at the murder scene almost to the moment when Paul and Maggie were killed. It's hard to imagine that the very short angry unarmed ninja people had time to find some Moselle guns to kill 2 people. Second, AM has lied from almost the first moments of the case. Never mind his REASONS for lying. He's admitted that he lies about nearly everything. Think about this: there is absolutely no reason to lie to law enforcement if you come home and find two members of your family slaughtered in brutal fashion. In fact, telling the truth is key to finding out what happened and who did it. The whole thrust of the parts of the cross-examination I saw was to show, over and over, again and again, that AM is a liar. That the new story was needed because the kennel video blew up the old one and that at every turn when he's in a corner or wants to seek advantage, AM lies. Just MOO but however "sympathetic" AM seems to be, the jury won't forget that he lies. All the time.