It's interesting now the strategic shape of the trial is becoming clearer, we can make some guesses about what has been going on behind the scenes.
First up, we know that the pre-trial drop of the Lexus user data from the infotainment module was a significant factor in reshaping the defence case in a different direction to trial 1. The defence was no longer able to contest that key cycle 1162 commenced at Waterfall. So Alessi & DiSogra came up with a game of seconds. The issue with 1162 is it proves a large part of the actus reus and mens rea of the case i.e. an intentional act (high speed reverse) than an objective person knows is dangerous and creates risk of death.
By calculating various clock variance of some 20-30 seconds different to the CW numbers - Alessi might manage to establish just enough doubt as to the strongest part of the CW case. Combined with the ARCCA "trump card" you have a pathway to NG.
So I understand the Alessi gambit, especially since realistically, "Hos long" was dead in the water pre-trial. Especially since you can claim to be the 'data side' in the face of the disastrous Karen videos. But it was of course highly risky to double down on a few seconds of proximity, let alone run by a guy without any murder trial experience.
Then IMO, things went wrong.
First Brennan himself reshaped the trial, by slimming down and not calling the parade of partygoers. This addressed Lally's unforced error where he enabled the defence to develop the conspiratorial narrative one witness after the next. Ditto as Proctor was now fired, Brennan could simply not call him, and the defence get a less good version of the trial. No Proctor, no deep dive into the party goers, and no 3rd party suspects.
Not calling Proctor was the first sign the defence were bottling it when it came to backing up AJs big talk IMO. Now of course there are very good tactical reasons not to be baited into calling him - but it hardly matched the rhetoric of opening.
The chaotic line up of witnesses that followed was baffling but now I think we can see why.
ARCCA ought to have opened the defence case. You want to open with a bang and set the narrative. Instead the narrative became Karen driving 24mph in reverse in extremely close temporal proximity to John's last iPhone interaction. And add in Alessi's panic from 14th May when he realised DiSogra had done a less than great job on the clock variance calculations.
But now we can see why this was. ARCCA was not what they wanted, and they couldn't really fix it though they ran up to the wire in delivering the powerpoints. A critical plank of the D case was John's supposed lack of injuries to his body and the supposed 'fact' that an arm could not break the tail light. ARCCA wrecked both those talking points, and additionally demonstrated how the tiny pieces of plastic would end up in John's shirt.
I do wonder if Brennan baited the defence on ARCCA pre-trial. It would have been so much better if ARCCA never did any more testing, and could have simply delivered their original independent work. The defence could have hired other reconstructionists last year, and simply not called them in this eventuality - burying the videos.
And there is a whole other question about whether an actual 'slip and fall' theory would have been better than the vast conspiracy sold in opening. If the jury really came knowing nothing, it's hard to see how the triple conspiracy needing at least Higgins as the killer, Jen and Kerry as conspiratorial area mums, plus fully half a dozen officers to fit Karen up can really land.
I have no idea what the jury will do of course. They are a black box. Nor do I care overly what they decide.
But I think we can say this is hardly the version of the trial the defence was hoping to get.
MOO
