That was my thoughts exactly, it does not sound like a trial, but like an appeal to emotion--but I suppose that is how it works if a jury gets to decide.
- - - Updated - - -
How about this part: >>“You also know how extremely good these people were,” Richardson said. “You know who they were and how they lived their lives.”<<
There is no purpose to it aside from appeal to emotion and the implications of this statement are extremely disturbing.
Does he call them "extremely good" just because they were victims?
Does he want to imply they didn't deserve to die because they were "extremely good"--but if they had been merely "good" they might have deserved it?
Does he want to tell us that murder would be ok if it had been "bad" (or just ordinary) people?
What is his metric here that he gets to judge the goodness of the victims and why does it matter at all?
Is it because they were in a church reading the bible? Is that why it is relevant that it was them he murdered and not random people off the streets?