Glad you mentioned beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD).
A jury in no uncertain terms must be certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.
A jury must be convinced that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented (a unanimous verdict in criminal cases) at trial.
-- Ex: its reasonable (no doubt) that a pedestrian strike occurred after being hit (clipped, whatever the evidence may be) by the defendant’s vehicle, while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of a crime. (guilty)
-- If there is any doubt that the defendant cant be placed at the scene of the crime, that’s reasonable doubt. (not guilty)
The CW is on their way to proving their case, but theres more evidence to present, first and foremost, the accident reconstruction expert (for the CW) will be invaluable.
The CW does not have to provide motive.
In addition, BARD is not that there are butt dials, that the homeowner didnt come (there were no sirens) out of the house, or that BH dumped his phone at a military base.
Further, I disagree with your opinion about Ms. Hyde (forensic data analyst), thought she was a great witness for the CW and she's another witness that didnt allow defense to twist their words. She’s top in her industry, a male dominate career, she's a success; and I love that, she’s intelligent, kind, and respectful. The star witness for today. Oh, and the star witness destroyed the claim that John O’Keefe was climbing stairs. Debunked. Again.
However, Alessi, needs to re-review how to speak to a professional (to a person in general), how to be respectful in the courtroom, his loud tone is inappropriate and he possibly is losing some jurors. He apparently is an angry little man. The defense is not helping their “client” with the cross examinations Ive seen. They (defense) are desperate and deflated. Wonder why...
Just another bad day for the defendant, and another day of my opinion