Those are really good things to work in. However, I do believe the timeline should start with the first known incidences of DV...and a good explanation that the term doesn't just mean beating someone up (because that's what most people think it means, sadly). To me it doesn't matter that it's an enhancement - the goal is to get him convicted of some type of murder, so that the enhancement can be used.
I like your idea of starting with the timeline. I usually do some definitions, myself, before heading into any kind of timeline, because people's eyes glaze over with timelines (I am so comfortable with timelines - as most WSers are - that I forget how hard they are for other people to use and keep in mind). I'd make my timeline in this case go horizontally and be roughly to scale (to show escalating amounts of conflict), mainly so that the timeline stands out from the other charges, where people read from top to bottom.
I'd love to know when the hotel was booked (I think it was booked quite a bit earlier - as it turns out that there was a permit for the crew to work on Monday 11, they knew they were supposed to stay up there on Sunday night and apparently MG thought Barry was going to drive her up there, sometime late Sunday afternoon).
I don't know how much weight I could on when he sent the Mother's Day texts. He sent one to his mom at about 8:30 am her time, seems thoughtful, normal. He sent more than one text to Suzanne, IIRC.
I think there's going to be a ton of financial info and of course, the trash dumps are quite incriminating.
Yes, I'm assuming that the daughter has confirmed something along those lines - and in fact, one of the reasons the AA is sealed is that it's entirely possible that the daughters were asked early on, while still in a state of excitement about their mother just disappearing, whether they knew of any domestic problems. LE surely asked about the broken down bedroom door frame (and I do think one person tweeted that there were "shards" of wood, so an estimate of when it happened should be possible).
It's interesting you'd think father-jurors would be more sensitive to the daughter(s) being on the stand. There are ways around putting them on the stand if they told investigators certain things or signed some kind of statement for LE. However, there are several points in this trial where the jury will be wondering why the daughters aren't asked (How often did Suzanne go biking? Did Barry ever yell at Suzanne? Did Suzanne ever speak of moving back to the house in Indiana? Had the daughters heard about any financial troubles?) There are perhaps others willing to testify on this matter (I can think of one person immediately) so perhaps MM2's testimony will not be so important. Also, sadly, since MM1 quickly (IMO) signed off on the conservatorship so that Dad could take over Suzanne's assets, she surely must have thought her mom was not coming back - and that goes to proof of death. The actions of Barry and MM1 around selling property and taking over Suzanne's community properly are not those of people who expect Mom to be coming home - ever.
If he knew in advance he was going to throw away the boots he wore to place Suzanne's body where ever it is, then he surely would have gotten rid of the laces as well - they'd hold as much forensic evidence as the soles, IMO. He seems to have been concerned about such things as dirt on the undercarriage of his truck and the insects/dirt on the windshield. So he knew that LE could use those things to begin to pinpoint where she was.
I don't think he found the use of ties necessary until later in the crime. Perhaps the laces and the boots are irrelevant, and maybe he took the laces home to wash them (I bet he did clean up the boots before disposing of them). If he transported Suzanne while she was still alive, he may have encountered circumstances he did not anticipate (she may have begun to move around, even if still sedated).
Shoelace use would be an improvised response, for sure. But I sense that there was quite a bit of improvisation in the end. Enough, anyway, that if it can be uncovered, we'll know way more about what happened. I wonder where those shoelaces are, today.
Anyway, I bet Barry kept an extra set of boots in his car and obviously had some shoes of some kind to change into, because I bet he didn't walk into the hotel barefoot or in his socks. If he did have to use the shoelaces in some fashion, during the crime, it would have been not that big a deal to walk in boots without shoe laces back to the car. The still usable shoelaces on the disposed boots should have been found either in the hotel room or in his truck when he returned...I bet that they were not found.
It does! And that's exactly the kind of expert work the jury needs to hear - that the entire nation needs to hear, if they're paying attention. It is most definitely relevant and can probably be used to interpret the homicide timeline. It would be a bit ground-breaking (to rely on experts in this area for staging out the crime), but I think this is the very case where it could work.
I will go to Starbucks on my way home, shut my phone off, and type...
