I would agree with this if we only had the reporting from the case in chief to go from. There was a massive lull in the middle of trial where reporters put out just a handful of tweets and a 20-minute podcast summarising a whole week's worth of evidence. But since then we've had LL's case in chief, her cross-examination, closing arguments (which really shone a light into corners of the case we hadn't seen before) and then summing up from the judge. All of this was very well covered, virtually minute by minute reporting by multiple professional reporters, and so I would be very surprised if there were anything so significant that had escaped the reporting.
If anything, I think I'm more inclined to think we are at some advantage over the jury by having the case brought into such sharp relief, through the reporting, as it might be in a well-produced documentary, and the jury might be bogged down by a ton of details that necessarily form part of the evidence but don't really help them to see the wood for the trees.
They do however have the advantage over us of seeing and assessing witness credibility first hand.
