Just my opinion but I think there's been plenty of incriminating evidence introduced over the past 3 days. Just what is 'real' evidence supposed to be?
Bear in mind that circumstantial evidence includes physical, digital, GPS, financial, testimony etc. It paints a pretty damning picture and can't be all explained away. BM's copious lies, misdirections and far-fetched excuses have also been exposed.
And I'm sure that there is more to come along that vein.
The defense can try to character assassinate SM all they want, since she is not here to defend herself, but it is BM's character that is on trial and being found wanting.
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. I think he's guilty in some way but I don't have enough that I think warrants a trial.
To me 'REAL' evidence is bM's DNA on a weapon or body or places it shouldn't be, video evidence of him disposing a body, A CRIME SCENE, a murder weapon with a direct link to bM, blood or DNA evidence in bM's truck, home, hotel room, video of him purchasing a murder weapon or something to help him in the murder or disposal of a body, an audio recording of him harming SM, DIRECT evidence of a blatant lie, computer forensics of internet searches that indicate anything related to a crime, phone evidence of threatening messages, phone records that prove statements he made are false, WITNESSES!!!, mistresses coming forward, evidence of past violence, CCTV of him doing something illegal or catching him in a lie, an accomplice coming forward, an admission of a crime, a body or parts of a body, a money trail that indicates a crime, paperwork that incriminates him.....I could go on but I think you get the idea.
There is none of that here. After over a year there isn't any hard, real evidence that bM did anything illegal. Fishy, yes. Illegal no. I said this earlier you can't try a guy for being a jerk.
Right now all I see is some evidence of a truck computer being reset, a few time stamps and GPS readings that may or may not be accurate, and a narcissist who thinks the world should revolve around him. I also see a woman who is having an affair, who may have a drug and alcohol problem, who has admitted that she wanted to take off and disappear to Ecuador because of a failed marriage and who used a spy pen to spy on her devoted husband ( ok that made me want to puke and I'm sorry I typed it but that's how the defense is going to spin things) There's more hard evidence of Suzanne being dishonest and shady then there is of bM being dishonest and shady. At least from the stuff that has been presented in court so far.
I hate that I think this way but I'm putting myself in the position of being a juror and so far, I'm not seeing anything that makes me think he killed her 100%.