That strategy is very risky in the real world: do you really think they're going to say “Oh no, we don't have HD video of him typing in the comment – call the whole thing off!” or simply look at all of the evidence, consider how plausible it is that an attacker chose that moment to closely mimic his style for an entire conversation just to frame him with an in-character comment, and then use the stronger end of the sentencing scale for lying to the court and making a lame attempt to avoid responsibility?
They appear to be trying a more realistic strategy: admit making the statement, show remorse but reject the premise that this was anything other than constitutionally protected speed or that it constituted a realistic threat. That seems far more likely to work, particularly given the age of the suspect.
Indeed. The burden of proof isn't "beyond any possible doubt". It's reasonable doubt. The court system won't be circumvented by a astoundingly minute logical loophole.
They appear to be trying a more realistic strategy: admit making the statement, show remorse but reject the premise that this was anything other than constitutionally protected speed or that it constituted a realistic threat. That seems far more likely to work, particularly given the age of the suspect.