i just assumed that he was putting himself in a juror's shoes...and, in that case, that's the analysis and conclusion process...and, like i said, all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt...if you say "the easter bunny did it", obviously that's not plausible...however, if you say "something bad happened, my dad helped me cover it up, i don't know why i acted the way i did afterward (drinking and partying), i guess i wasn't in my right mind (she's already got that one covered...slam dunk)"...that explanation is completely plausible...but, is it plausible enough to create reasonable doubt?? we'll see.