Rottenborn didn’t waffle, I’m going blue on the face with people comparing the closing statements and missing the point entirely.
Runkle summarised it really well; Rottenborn was driving home the litigious points which are inevitably boring. Elaine to a degree, but she obviously was struggling to keep the jury engaged (always going to be a challenge anyway).
it’s totally useless and pointless to compare the two closing statements, because they have different aims and objectives.
Johnny’s teams want to rely on the factual evidence and appeal to the rational, common sense side of the jury. They’re also appealing to the emotive side, hence the hugging and tears and camaraderie.
Amber’s side are much more no nonsense and legal speak. It’s about whether or not Depp’s evidence meets the instructions set out by the judge. It focuses on the lengthy, detailed judges instructions - and points out how the evidence doesn’t support the very high threshold required of it. Rottenborn had to make sure the jury really got that point, which is why it doesn’t “flow” as well as Camille or Ben’s statements. Same for Elaines.