Sorry Timmy, I did see your question and meant to answer it. Thanks for reminding me. Firstly, and this been discussed before, if the accused admits guilt to their lawyers then those lawyers are limited in what they can present to the court. They can't suggest an alternate theory of say suicide or point the finger at someone else. However if the accused does not admit guilt then they are free to propose alternate possibilities just like in GBC case.
The second bail hearing was the first serious mention of depression. His lawyers raised it before Judge Applegarth and sought bail on the basis this possibility was a change in circumstances for GBC bail status. They were clear (I was in court) that it was the prosecutions evidence, namely the toxicology report that showed Allison had greatly increased levels of sertraline in her body. The judge did not like it one little bit and pointed out it was very unlikely she overdosed then walked 14 Kms to Kholo.
However for the purposes of the bail application he decided that this theory or suggestion by the defence did not change GBC's circumstances and refused bail.
Ever since then both for the committal and trial, both the defence legal teams have tried to present as much evidence on the depression/ suicide possibility as they could. This would have been the lawyers and GBC with his family all working on this together. And there is no problem with the lawyers doing that as clearly GBC has not admitted guilt to them. Hope this answers your question.
BIB. Yes, those of us who are legal illiterates now understand the DT approach better from a legal view, that the accused, his family & his witnesses have worked together with his legal team to present this view. However, I remain uncomfortable with the degree of denigration of the alleged murderer's victim in his defense. My opinion only.