Re: Case for the defence?
Right, here is how things work.
When you go to court the prosecution presents its evidence. Once they have done that it is the turn of the defence and they present theirs.
Journalists, no matter how good or bad, can only report on what has been presented in court. At the moment it is only the prosecution who have presented any evidence and so this is what is getting reported.
There are several things that might result in journalists not reporting on the defence and they are:
1. The defence presents no evidence.
2. The Judge believes the prosecution has not met the minimum standard so directs the jury.
3. The defence's arguments are to boring.
4. The defence's evidence is so short the trial is over before it can be reported.
Personally, I'd go for number 3 although I think the Register will report it. The defendant will claim, he didn't do it and/or his computer was hacked and/or he was only joking when he said lets attack Paypal and/or etc. All of these are fairly predictable and boring.