ok..
First, a statement doesn't have to be admissible to have an impact on a jury
Even if the judge advises a jury to disregard a statement.. the damage has already been done. Why do you think lawyers say things they know will be thrown out?? Because most jurors just can't forget things. It's a ploy that is used constantly. Like you said, this could very well be the case already. The defense could be pulling this trick now. Also, were the kids to hire a new lawyer, council whatever, the old lawyers could be put on the stand under oath. Not to say they will hire new council, just pointing out that it could happen.
secondly, there aren't any leaks yet. I said that will still come through. That doesn't mean it has occured yet, just that eventually no matter how tight lipped the DA says his office is, the leaks will occur. That's just the way it goes.
Again, I totally understand what you are saying about not accepting what a biased source says as fact. I'm just going with my gut instinct on this one and using what the defense has said as a backup. If something else were to be said to alter my judgements so far I would definately change my mind. I'm just merely pointing out that something has been off from day 1 in this case and I don't see these allegations standing.