I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. All I said was that two added was a sign - imo - that this was expected to be a long process, complicated, not a slam dunk, and not a plea deal. And yes, I should have written two Assistant Attorneys General (or Deputy? IDR), but I didn't (I guess I should have written AsG, but that would be even more confusing) It's jmo what it means to add them. I've heard both sides. When posters roll up and say it's a done deal or BK will do a plea deal, I disagree. No more complicated than that. I don't think it's unusual or unreasonable that two more or added, but I just think it's an indicator.
I don't think there are any slam dunks and I personally believe that any prosecuting attorney that believes there are should replaced immediately.
The Douglas Garland trial was somewhat personal for me so I watched the trial fairly closely and it was entirely comprised of circumstantial evidence.
One of the most interesting parts of the trial for me was the incredible amount of courtroom time the Crown put into having LE establish how much effort they put into looking at other potential suspects and how they cleared each individual. Based on the fairly quick conviction, it seems it was enough to convince a jury that LE did their due dilligence and did not focus on a single individual from the onset and I would hope that LE has done much the same here.