I saw a lot of commentary on the defense going after the testimony of the victim. Unfortunately, that has come as a result of a flimsy case from the DA. I think the attorney did a good job of not accusing the victim of lying as much as he did lay out the inconsistency of that testimony. It's not the majority of the defense argument either.
The whole point is to establish reasonable doubt. It doesn't have to be the same doubt for all jurors. It just has to be there for one of them?
.
Agreed. Cover the bases. Some jurors will respond to the DNA evidence, others will respond to the retelling of events.