Defense opening statement (paraphrased): she was molested from childhood, learned to carry on as if nothing was wrong, desensitized to trauma, lying and acting "normal" became second nature to her. This assertion was impressed on the jury by the infamous/shocking sentence in DT opening.
Given the above, every witness for the State who has testified as to her appearing "normal", happy etc.. every witness who has testified to her lying about something (job, daughter whereabouts, future living conditions) ... all of this testimony (90% of the testimony so far) does nothing to contradict the DT assertion and in fact supports it.
The State had obviously intended to provide a multitude of witnesses to testify that she appeared unaffected by her daughter's death, but the DT shot a hole in that boat before the first witnesses were called. Same with the 31 days, its lost its relevance unless the State can can remove any reasonable doubt from the DT assertion(s) - and that won't be a trivial matter. IMO, there is a difference between no detectable change in behavior whatsoever (what we've heard to date), and small hints of something amiss. The former tends to support the DT story (conditioned to compartmentalize via trauma).
Aside from the effect of the testimony re: her disposition and behavior (neutral at best without anything else) the rest of the testimony from these particular witnesses thus far has additionally elicited that: no one could smell anything like decomp from the trunk, that (for the most part) she was at an attentive and/or loving mother, she was a light drinker, and she kept her relationship with her parents (and brother) as far away as possible from her friends/love interests both in the character of those relationships and the overlap. "Ever met her parents?", "No".
This is the State's case in chief, but its helping build the case for the defense, perhaps moreso than the State's...at least so far.
