AT skillfully dismantled LM's only alibi (CM) by exposing her inconsistencies and misremembering's that convinced a majority jury. DF was unable to convince otherwise. I'm not sure about AT's approach, you'd have to ask him. From her court testimony and subsequent media outings on podcasts etc, I haven't seen anything that highlights CM's honesty though.
Considering the prejudicial nature of the media reporting before hand coupled with where the case was heard I know a few legal students who would have had no trouble getting the verdict Turnbull did. If Turnbull had dismantled Luke’s alibi as skilfully as you suggest then why only a majority decision? Why did a substantial section of the jury, maybe as many as seven jurors, believe the case against Luke was at least not proven? What pieces of evidence do you think were unconvincing to those jurors?
Care to comment on the honesty of Jodi’s mum? How do you feel about her lying to her son’s mental health team with ‘the usual excuse’ on the very day that her daughter was murdered? That even though she had been warned not to let her son smoke cannabis as it exacerbated his psychosis had not only allowed him to commit an illegal act under her own roof but had covered up his drug taking to his own mental health team. Does her lying impact on her honesty in regard to her son’s alibi? Judith had lied once that day to the authorities about her son’s whereabouts surely a second time would have been just as probable?