He said many things that just seemed to show an amateurish understanding of basic things like criminal evidence. For example, he repeatedly claimed that his Calendar "exonerated" him, when no independant legal opinion considers it any more than supplemantary evidence. It's not like he was going to put "Tuesday - I plan to sexually assault somebody tonight". It had many gaps. Also, he seemed to think that unsworn reports from a friend consitituted strong evidence. No judge would see it like that, they'd want witnesses sworn in and able to be crossexamined by the prosecution. It's almost like he's some guy off the street when it comes to analysing evidence, a key role of any judge, yet he wants to be judge of the highest court of the land.