I disagree strongly.there are many of these teeny statements that beale makes - where just one word or the order of the words - makes it seem like its a definite or like its an actual fact or like it is an order from him - the person of authority. i could go through them one by one but frankly, i dont have the energy. It is just depressing..the whole dang thing
Beale is taking each area of disputed evidence and comparing the essence of prosecution evidence, vs the essence of the defence rebuttal.
"He says the defence argued that the individual portions were all cooked on one baking tray and that the only way to control who was served the poisonous meal was to mark the pastry itself.".
Notice: He says the defence said...
The judge is not saying the defense is true or correct, he is just summarizing what they said. The jury must decide for themselves whether they accept the prosecution evidence, or not.
Especially the point about being cooked on one tray - the jury knows that's just what they say. The defense offered no proof.