I agree. Assuming that the judge finds probable cause in August, I think the defense will then argue aggressively for the exclusion of evidence. Once the judge decides what will be admitted and what will not, the team will assess the best way to defend. They may simply rely on the presumption of innocence, and argue that the People have not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good post, and good line of discussion!
I agree with those who have said that both the character defense ("I'm a good Christian guy who loves Suzanne and she loves me, and it's inconceivable that I would do this.") and the alibi defense ("I was in Broomfield working when the alleged murder allegedly occurred.") could blow up in BM's face if they are offered. In fact, any defense that depends on BM's testimony would be a two-edged sword IMO.
It seems unlikely that SM was involved in an extramarital affair with another dangerous man, but who knows? If the police failed to inquire about this possibility or to follow up leads, the defense will argue that the CCSO developed tunnel vision at the beginning and railroaded BM. Same, IMO, if they failed to inquire as to who was in the nearby RV park (Monarch Spur?) during the period leading up to SM's disappearance, to determine whether any danger was apparent from that direction. Same for BM's disgruntled former employee. Anything and everything will be argued to characterize the investigation as unfair, incomplete, or incompetent whether it results in the suppression or not.
All MOO.