I see no reasonable doubt; I would literally bet my life on his guilt (I say the same for OJ).
Innocent people have no reason to lie about anything, and Barry lied about everything.
She asks for a divorce, and he tells investigators they have the perfect marriage.
She goes dark forever when he's the only one there, and he tells an insane story about that night that is contradicted by his phone, her phone, his truck, and his own conflicting stories. Then her phone last pings just before he left the house.
Then he drives to Broomfield for no reason, dumps trash, spends hours in his hotel, lies about his movements, lies to the Ritters when they call him, lies to CBI multiple times, and is literally caught on camera staging his alibi.
He admits to a frantic event in the backyard, confirms he used a tranquilizer (deer antler lie), places himself at the helmet location, deletes texts, and lies some more.
One of my favorite lies is when he said he and Suzanne had lunch together, eating veggie soup, which was actually a day or two before.
His phone, his truck data, and Suzanne's texts to JL about being alone, soundly refute this. Further evidence comes from a phone call Barry placed to Suzanne shortly after leaving, which makes no sense as they just spent a couple hours together.
To explain all of this, Barry claims he was looking for a long dead turkey in the backyard.
All of his lies are blown apart by multiple pieces of evidence, and every single one must be believed in order for Barry to be
innocent.
So you'd have to believe Barry was chasing chipmunks, looking for a turkey corpse, framed by a herd of elk, shooting deer that don't even have antlers to saw their antlers off, and looking for a bear or coyote in the darkness when Suzanne's Facebook requests went out.
Even then there are other pieces of evidence that must be explained:
You'd have to believe Barry and Suzanne breaking all established digital patterns means nothing (she is completely quiet and his location event count is off the charts)
That Suzanne went on a bike ride in a strange location, without things she would usually bring, and with a powered down cell phone that she never bothered to check on Mother's Day, with her daughters traveling home, on the day of her best friend's wedding.
Barry had had the motive, means, and opportunity. He tells us why he did it, and he tells us how he justified it to himself.
Basically, "God judges Suzanne for cheating, and I had every right to do it."
Barry is a pathological liar, a fake Christian, a confirmed abuser (psychologically controlled Suzanne via threats of suicide), and a killer.
He just got one thing right...
It's frustrating that not everyone can see it, but that's the nature of almost all murder cases.
To me it's also critical that the circumstantial evidence be approached in the correct manner.
A properly directed jury must first consider all the facts that it accepts. These need not all be proven BARD. Only then shall inferences be drawn. If the jury believes BM is guilty, they only then ask, is the case proven beyond reasonable doubt (or whatever formulation you wish to use).
The defence invites you to accept mere speculation (abductor) as a reasonable possibility - a kind of whataboutism.
There is no evidence to support an inference that an abductor exists, beyond the mere fact of SMs disappearance.
But an abductor is also in fact ruled out by the circumstantial evidence. The theory cannot account for the known facts without engaging in logical contortions.