Here's the thing... many of the SODDI posts on this board where they attempt to explain away damaging evidence suggests a large number of alternatives which are complicated and just not supported by any evidence. In fact, one of the reasons I keep sticking with the BDI camp is that many SODDI posts suggest such outrageous alternatives that it leads me to believe Brad really did it.
I adhere to Occam's Razor most of the time. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Sure maybe Nancy puked on the ducks and Brad cleaned and hid them, but the more likely explanation is the ducks had nothing to do with anything.
Another was of stating Occam's Razor is the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Another way of stating it is, use plain common sense.
I say BDI. I'm certain of that beyond a reasonable doubt. The ducks issue hurts the prosecution because they postulated a theory that probably wasn't true. They didn't need to add the ducks to the equation but did. Now they get the downside of overstating what they know.
I always appreciate your posts by the way, and I think Brad should go to jail. But if the defense keeps chopping away at the circumstances, I'm liable to change my mind.