All excellent points, although the jury probably won’t know or care about what’s been posted here for the last two years. But their stories didn’t even match under oath for two DAYS, either with each other or with their own previous testimony.
I can imagine giving someone a little leeway for fuzziness on some details due to the passage of time or stressful circumstances, but that comes up against a brick wall once you hear that they were plotting MB’s destruction in advance, with the receipts to prove it. That casts an entirely new light on the whole situation.
How could anyone not have reasonable doubt when they are the source of the whole version of events with no corroboration?