There are two big problems with SBF’s defense. The first is that Ellison had made a persuasive case during her time on the stand that he was well aware of the problems, had directed most of what she did, and had lied about Alameda’s increasingly difficult financial situation. “He directed me to commit these crimes,” she testified.

The second problem was that, to put it bluntly, SBF is a terrible witness. He looked visibly nervous most of the time he was in the witness box. He often had his hands tucked between his legs. He rarely blinked. His voice rose as he spoke, making his answers sound like questions. He used a curt yep when a yes was called for, and nope instead of no. No one found his occasional efforts at humor funny. Whenever he tried to expand upon an answer, Judge Kaplan cut him down.

And this was during the easy part of his testimony, when his lawyer was tossing him one softball question after another. SBF seemed incapable of saying anything that might engender empathy from a juror. …

And then it was Danielle Sassoon’s turn.

[It’s amazing that his attorneys put SBF on the stand at all, given his weirdness and his clear inclination to obfuscate, if not outright lie. One has to conclude that SBF insisted on taking the stand. Whatever the decision process, it appears clear that it was a mistake. Nocera’s anecdote about SBF’s attempt to dance around a question about taking a private jet to the Super Bowl shows just how unprepared Bankman-Fried was for a professional cross-examination. — Ed]