Which means that both will certainly be convicted, given current public attitudes.
Being dirty as they are doesn't help either.
"Hard evidence" to an AP writer, in a trial such as this one, just means the writer can't think of anything to hang a hook on.
They want something sensational, or something CSI-like, or a smoking gun. KenLay at the shredding machine; Skilling's gun in Baxter's car - stuff like that, which could make them look like they sleuthed it out first.
To them, lies are just lies, no biggie. When in doubt, always take the defense's side, no matter what. They talk to the reporters more, anyway.
I saw plenty of evidence of wrongdoing and I don't even have the trial transcripts, just the daily reports from 3-4 sources. The judge's jury instructions will make a world of difference in the outcome of this trial - namely, that "burying your head in the sand" concept - if the defendant *should have known* the condition of the company he headed, and says that he didn't, he's guilty of fraud.