The cartoon-trailer look, to me, speaks of either lack of available funds OR (someone pointed out it looked like all ‘his’ stuff) wish to control all his private belongings, and not have them in the possession of the removal people.
Or the move, in the end, was prompted by something that made him hasty. And yes, it does look as if some of that is documents or boxes that could hold records.
^RSBM
I suppose the defense could call in a neurosurgeon to show previous example cases of significant concussive head injuries, with little damage to a bicycle.
I don’t think it will matter much. The prosecution will prove that the bike ride never happened at all, and that Suzanne was already dead before the alleged bike ride was staged.
jmo
I agree it won't matter much - but I don't think it would be easy to find a reputable forensic bike accident person who can testify to this. A neurosurgeon is certainly not going to testify about the status of the bike (which he never saw and it's not his specialty). A judge is really unlikely to allow a doctor to testify about a case in which he wasn't involved - but probably would allow the defense to have a forensic bike accident specialist.
Because the first thing they need to establish is that there was a bike accident (and I don't think they will do that to the satisfaction of the jury, at all). And for that, they don't need a neurosurgeon.
Also, the term "little damage" is still significant - at least in the cases I've read. These days, accident reconstruction is a true science. While it may appear that someone who crashed their head into a sidewalk or curb (the most common kind of head damage while on a bike), and that there's little damage to the bike, there will
always be some evidence in the bike itself. When a bike hits a curb hard enough to throw its rider onto cement or pavement, or hits a rock, or bounces down a hill, it does indeed cause microscopic and characteristic patterns of fracture in the spokes and usually the frame itself. Even the way the handlebars land will speak to whether human hands were still holding onto them.
But I don't think LE needs much of this, although it is possible that, on the day they closed the road up that way to search, they could have brought in bike experts to measure and test the slope and do the other things they do to reconstruct the scene, before and after examining the bike microscopically.
If finger prints were wiped from the bike, that would have been known fairly soon - but the DNA on the bike would not have been. Since BM almost certainly won't take the stand in his own trial, the prosecution will be able to show (most likely) that his DNA is on that bike (on the seat, on the seat's underside, on the handlebars - but not in a pattern consistent with riding the bike).
It will paint a vivid picture in the jury's minds, and the only defense will be "well, he was her husband, he helped her load the bike occasionally," whereupon witnesses may be called to testify they never saw Barry do such a chivalrous thing. The only defense to that, IMO, is for Barry to take the stand and say he helped Suzanne load her bike on one or more occasions. But then, he'd have to answer a lot of other questions - so that's not gonna happen.
If it were to come to dueling experts, in which one or more bike experts (with strong, even looking credentials) testify the bike did not go down that slope and land the way it was found with a rider on it, and then a defense expert (whose credentials will certainly be those of someone who always testifies in favor of accused persons), the jury will discount that expert, as they always do (although if the jury has a person on it who always takes the defendant's side in things, it could cause issues).
But I think there's going to be strong evidence that Suzanne was not asleep at 5 am, that she did not go on a bike ride, that she was already dead.