It becomes even more awkward when the defendant doing the cross examination keeps referring to himself as "the defendant" in the third person, which is what I think Mr. Daker has been doing thus far.
I will never forget a trial I watched once, it was a aggravated battery or something like that, and the pro se defendant kept asking the victim questions like, "So according to you, the defendant took the pliers and slammed them into your face?" To which the victim turned to the jury and replied, "No sir, YOU took the pliers from the table, slammed them into my face" I think identity of the defendant was more of an issue in that case... but it certainly makes an impact on the jury.
Kind of like Waseem in his opening statement saying "I don't think the evidence will show that I did it," or whatever it is he said. For Pete's sake, if you are representing yourself, you better look every juror in the eye and tell them that the state won't prove their case because YOU DIDN'T DO IT! What a wishy washy way to open your case. LOL
Anyhow, my feeling about this whole thing at this stage is this, this is real life people, this is a serious thing with serious allegations, I think its only right personally to stay out of any further commentary, there is at least one victim here and a very serious trial that deserves respect from all of us, regardless of the outcome.
PS - for everyone betting on sentencing should he be convicted, my guess is that there are probably minimum mandatory sentences in the books that apply to some of the crimes he is charged with. Perhaps felony murder in Georgia carries a mandatory life sentence. First degree murder in Florida does, but I'm not sure about Georgia law. Remember also that he is charged with multiple crimes, all of which will carry different penalties, which the court might impose consecutively or concurrently. (PROTIP - you have to look at Georgia law in 1995 since if I recall that's when the crimes were committed)