prosecution's story. But it always seems damning when a defense doesn't float an alternative explanation. Especially in this case where the victims are buried in the defendent's backyard and were a topic of his text strands leading up to their deaths. I didn't sense that the defense was ever trying to suss out facts that can build an alternative story. I'd assume the obvious scape goat is Alex Cox--you gotta try to float a story where he was the murderer on his own volition, right? Maybe they looked into that and realized that there is too much evidence that Alex was following orders.

Again, they aren't required to put forth another theory. But I'd think you really want to in this case when so much circumstantial evidence points at you. But I am no Perry Mason.