The comments give well considered rebuttals to some important defence points. This trial seems quite polarizing.I started the trial convinced of AM's guilt, and have become even more sure as the trial has proceeded. I have seen exactly nothing that has given me any doubt, and much that has supported my position. I don't think the defence has been especially clever, and don't think JG should be representing AM, because of his earlier role after the murders. AM is fighting like a cornered rat, and I understand why he is, but the case seems hopelessly lost to me, even given some of the problems with the investigation.
Other's see the defence glass more half full. Given what they have to work with, (granted, it's pretty bad), they have spun their arguments well, or cleverly. I've read claims of the murders failing to reach the reasonable doubt threshold, speculations of a hung jury, or worse, a tainted one.
Whatever else he is, he's a confessed liar and thief. We've just seen convincing digital evidence. We've heard quite gripping direct and cross examination of his peers, that even they didn't recognise the monster that AM's charisma and manipulations hid. We've heard from Tony Satterfield, from Mark Tinsley. AM has sat through this trial, watching all those he has hurt, and still he thinks it is a good idea to testify.