Hmmm….maybe. If the defence is going to rely on the daughters to show SM lied about her whereabouts, the prosecution will question them about any abuse they may have been witness to. If they lie, they risk being exposed, especially if they confided in anyone outside the home. The defence may posit that SM lied to SO about the abuse, but what if one of the daughters confided in a boyfriend that she herself did in fact counsel her mother to seek a restraining order?
From my perspective, I don’t see the defence overcoming the circumstantial evidence against BM. The fact that SM lied to conceal an affair is well, understandable. His explanations of what she was wearing, what he was doing with her and all the other inconsistencies will be enough for anyone with firing brain cells to determine he’s lying through his teeth. Veneered teeth, at that! I believe the real “meat and potatoes” will be served up at trial. JMHO