If I were a juror, I would want to examine the evidence on 2 things:
Question 1. Did Michelle die as a result of myocarditis as was given as cause of death by 1st ME?
Answer 1: No. Dr. Perper conclusively showed w/ empirical evidence that there was no myocarditis. He showed slides of heart tissue w/ the appropriate stains that showed no myocarditis. Additionally, he examined the blood evaluations 8 days prior to her death and there was no enzyme present that would indicate an infection or virus which could cause myocarditis. (That is why Defense did not put on a ME type expert. The evidence is irrefutable.)
Question 2: Did Martin MacNeill have time to have committed the murder?
Answer 2: Yes. A review of telephone records, time of photo session as well as a review of the map that showed distances between Health Center, home and school show that there was ample opportunity.
I would not need to examine the evidence on motive. It has clearly been established.
I would not need to examine the evidence that shows he requested and obtained a surplus of drugs that, in an overdosage, would render someone incapacitated.
I would not need to examine evidence that shows the cause of death was drowning. I think it has been well established.
I would not need to examine evidence showing he was obstructing justice - lying, obfuscating, destroying material evidence, etc. That has been well established.
The fact that cause of death is not empirically known would not trouble me unduly. The fact that the cause of death was NOT acute cardiac arrest due to myocarditis as was claimed in Opening Statements by Defense has been refuted and shown to be false. That allows consideration of drowning. Unintentional drowning? Who would get into the bathtub partially clothed and then fall asleep and drown? That is not reasonable.
What other things would you want to examine more carefully before rendering a verdict?