Let's have a look at our 'narratives' then, CanadaRob3.

Let's see - I started out saying "I'd be surprised if the judge hasn't made scores of evidentiary and procedural rulings, some in favour of the accused, some in favour of the prosecution."

And he had.

For instance, the prosecution requested 13 witnesses; he denied 12 and allowed one.

Now you say: "If you knew anything about jurisprudence you would know prior acts are not admissible except to counter something a witness said or in the sentencing phase."

Really?

Not even if they compellingly showed a common pattern?  Not just any common pattern, of course.  It would have to be strikingly similar enough that - as those who know about jurisprudence say - the probative value of a witness's testimony outweighs the risk of prejudice. 

And you know, it appears that's why he allowed the one witness, but not the other 12.

So, do you have any more "jurisprudence" to show that "clearly the judge wanted a guilty verdict"?