Been following this trial daily like most of you, as well as reading the very interesting and insightful thoughts posted on this forum (which I honestly didn't know existed until this trial started).
One thought that I keep coming back to, and has been stated I'm sure before is two-fold. 1) That though taken in individual context, all the little things that make BC look suspicious are explainable but, at least so far, taken together they represent an increasingly unlikely scenario. And 2) I'm having a very difficult time constituting whether or not that unlikely scenario constitutes reasonable doubt.
As to "the smoking gun" ... I highly doubt there is one in all honesty. I don't believe this case would have made it to trial if there was a single piece of evidence that was altogether damning for BC. It would have been plead out.
I think there are two very large looming questions remaining as well. 1) The testimony of RZ and how that is going to be addressed by the prosectution, and 2) if BC will testify in his own defence which admittedly is unlikely but could prove to be a bit of a nail in the coffin to the prosecution if he gets up there and recites the same story that the defense has put forth as a timeline at the same time as seeming credible.
