Outstanding post,
@10ofRods! What you have outlined here is what some of the most experienced WSers here can visualize as we develop our theories and put together our timelines.
Others with less organized minds and/or less experience have many of the same facts available to them, but are not able to grasp all the data to lay it out in an understandable pattern which reveals the true picture to them. This is why so many people had a hard time with the Prelim. It was just floating facts, but little story.
This is also why a prosecutor’s ability to tell the story in a simple, clear, and concise manner is so important at trial. Of course they must insert the data to back up the story, but not do so in such a way that the storyline is lost. The defense will try to muddy the picture by throwing out all kinds of “what ifs” most of which have nothing to do with the case. The prosecutor must be on his toes; he must be able to reel the jury back in as they start floating away on irrelevant data rafts.
@10ofRods , your example is the way this case must be presented, especially as it is a circumstantial case, a cumulation of factoids. It takes that big box of puzzle pieces, (the one that has no picture on the cover for the jury to see), and lays them all out, interlocking every piece to form the most beautiful, complete, picture.