Exactly. They have literally thrown crap against the wall throughout their whole case and then never mentioned it again. What they did with the shoes really bothers me. They spend a bunch of time pointing out the missing HT shoes. Yet they bring in a witness to testify about mica on his running shoes even though it doesn't chemically match the crimes scene. But if a juror only heard the mica part, they might think it meant something. But does that mean they now have a theory that he wore the running shoes to dump her, then changed to the missing shoes, then changed to the sandles? Or does that mean they think he cased this site prior to the murder, even though they haven't come out an suggested it? To me, it's more like "See...his shoes are missing so he must have killed her". But also "See...there was white mica on his running shoes so he must have killed her because there was also white mica at the body site even though we only tested there, his yard, and lochmere lake...but it means he must have killed her". Or "See...we took this rug...but I'll mention much later that nothing was found on the rug so you will think the rug was important". Or "See, he bought a tarp at Lowes, so he must have killed her. Please ignore that the same tarp was found in an unoppened package in the garage...he must have killed her because he bought it." The whole freaking case has been like this. Or even sneaky stuff like "How big is the fxo? It would be able to fit in your pocket, right? But please ignore that the fxo won't work without a router that is at least the size of a pizza box because the fxo is small, so it means he could hide it in his pocket...which means he must have killed her."