Defense fail to follow substantial leads

The defense failed to take the lead that one of the men who testified against Anthony Nealy ('RD') had been living at Mr Nealy's house for several months prior to the murder.

They also failed to challenge his claim that he did not turn himself into the police until Anthony Nealy had done so.

They also failed to initiate the argument that it would have clearly been more sensible for RD to turn himself into the police and inform them about Mr Nealy's involvement, rather than waiting for Mr Nealy to be arrested.

Clearly RD had admitted to involvement at the scene of the crime, although Anthony and Claude Nealy would not admit to this involvement?

Why did the defense not question the discrepancies between the testimonies?