Don't know if anyone else might be interested in this, or if it needs to be merged, but, lets take a look at particular TV "experts" and their analysis as it unfolds. Personally, I am struck by what I perceive to be a "special relationship" between Beth K. and JB, which I picked up on just prior to opening statements, when BK strongly emphasized her suspicions of Roy Kronk, and, lo and behold, just minutes later it developed that JB made a VERY big deal about K. Was Beth's RK emphasis sagacious insight or was she privy to what JB was going to say? Thats certainly open to interpretation. I have my opinion. As the trial has happened, I have been paying close attention to what BK says. Sometimes she seems neutral, sometimes she points out weaknesses in both cases. But sometimes she just takes a position that is just NOT TRUE and usually if not always, it is in favor of the defense. Just now, the IS host pointed out that it might be significant that the DT did not question LA about his "alleged" sexual "encounter/attempt" with ICA, and made the inference that the lack of questioning should be considered a loss for the DT. BK said, NO..." Well, it isn't really part of the defense. The defense is that GA did, not LA. And that G. was complicit in the cover up of the death of Caylee , which was an accidental drowning. Lee really didnt factor into that. Well what has been elicited so far really wasnt in front of the jury. It was TL making a proffer in front of the judge as to what his testimony would be. Its not coming in. ...however if Casey gets on the stand and says it, it might become an issue but not until then." This is clearly, imo, pro dt analysis, that is misleading, and actually untrue. JB said, in his opening statement that LA had made inappropriate sexual moves (my words) on ICA, and he tied the behavior to his accustaions against GA, saying LA's weren't as successful. But he made the point, that it happened and it IS part of his bigger point that it was a toxic family that warped poor ICA so horribly she .....blah, blah,blah. The point here is that Beth K. disagreed with the valid point the host was making, and discounted it as being not important. imo, it is an example of BK pandering to the DT, and attempting to obscure a really important point, which is that the dt failed to support a major part of their "story" about the toxic family in their examination of LA by not mentioning the supposed sexual misbehavior = toxic family theory. I would appreciate further discussion on Beth K. or any other commentator, pro or con. I am beginning to appreciate Casey Jordan's commentary.