The above link gives a fair good summation of the basic tenets of today's closing arguments. Check back for an elaborate break-down Commentary the days closing arguments for both sides,
but suffice to say, it is my humble opinion that the State was not nearly as comprehensive, nor emphatic as it could have been. Many key points were left virtually untouched leaving essential attributes of the crimes insofar as motive, not as neatly tied together as they could have been for this Jury.
The defense's closing was a pretty much a foregone conclusion : "the other guy did it" or "made me do it" and was,as expected, rather succinct, as was the entire Defense's case, beleaguered as it was by by mountains of incriminating evidence, the defendant being caught fleeing the murder scene and a waiver of rights and confession to Police
But many of us were looking to the prosecution to not only piece together the evidenciary findings more adeptly, but to express the unusually far reaching effects that these crimes have rendered upon a community a state: fear, grief and public outrage, mostly went untouched by dearington.
But this seems to be part and parcel of Michael Dearingtons professional persona, with even Thomas Ullmann remarking that Dearington wasn't an in your face type of prosecutor prone towards melodramatic theatrics designed to illicit anger and pity from a jury. Although Ullmann went on to say that he found Dearingtons methodical pace more dangerous than the aforementioned tactics, I'm not certain I agree.
We'll see if he offers more during the penalty phase.