0 fraud he had been committing for years, the defense pointing out that doesn't make any sense, all that did was landed him in law enforcement's focus. so, what we see here is the defense trying to eat away at the prosecution's case. they did that earlier by attacking forensic evidence. they spent a lot of time talking about blood splatter evidence and why that might not be a reliable indicator of guilt. and while the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution, in essence, has to convince the jury on each of these points. the defense only has to make that on...