GBC must be considered innocent until proven guilty and considered guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. To my mind this means that he will not be convicted if there is some slight chance in the minds of the jury that he is innocent.
The onus lies on the prosecution to remove all doubts about his guilt and at this stage of the trial they obviously haven't done that. I think that so far they have convinced the jury (and me) that he has lied about how he got scratches on his face saying that they were caused by a safety-razor.
I think he is a liar and I think those face scratches are caused by something other than a safety razor and possibly by fingernails. From his other injuries I think he was in a fight with someone who scratches during the night of April 19th. I don't know why he lied and I don't know who he fought or where. It is up to the prosecution to paint a clearer picture with evidence and obviously they will.
As to whether there is some slight chance that he is innocent, that is the job of his defence: GBC doesn't have a watertight alibi otherwise it would have been offered and checked by now and he would be a free man. The defence could argue that some person unknown had the opportunity to murder ABC while GBC was 'heavy sleeping'. The defence could argue that there had been a violent domestic dispute and ABC scratched GBC but that does not prove murder. They could argue that GBC is taking the rap to protect the real murderer.
Lots of scenarios could be contrived that cause reasonable doubt unless the prosecution closes off all options.
I think most people reading this forum are of the same opinion as to whether GBC is guilty or not. The fascination for me is to watch how the prosecution presents what they must see as their watertight case against him.
It is worth keeping in mind that "beyond reasonable doubt" is NOT "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The narrative either adds up to a cohesive, believable sequence of events or it doesn't.
Either: Allison's cheating husband, facing financial ruin and under pressure from his mistress to end his marriage once and for all, killed his heavily insured wife (and am I right in thinking her death occurred on the last day she was covered by a policy they couldn't afford to renew?), transported her body in the car where blood was later found, and dumped her off a bridge
Or
Allison killed herself, via an unknown/undetectable mechanism, in a location she was either transported to by unknown means/person(s) who haven't come forward, or she walked to in the dark for in excess of two hours...
Or
Allison was killed by an unknown person who didn't rob or rape her...
And Gerard's facial abrasions were genuinely caused by a razor even though experts find that highly improbable...
And she coincidentally picked up botanical traces that match the low growth around her house...
And the blood came to be there by innocent means in the brief time she'd owned the car...
The question isn't: is it possible to find another explanation for each individual piece of information? The question is: taken as a whole, is it reasonable to conclude the prosecution's case is the most likely explanation? Is it reasonable to believe it was a series of increasingly unlikely coincidences - he just so happens to self inflict unusual shaving cuts on the very day his wife was killed in a random attack by a stranger, which is a very unusual murder (see: Jill Meagher), which coincidentally happened as his self-imposed deadline approached to leave his wife, etc.
I believe a reasonable person would be required to accept far too much happenstance to conclude he was innocent. Any alternate scenarios I can think of require too much of the fantastical to seriously challenge the simple explanation: the man with means, motive and circumstantial evidence pointing to him is the one who did it.
