I do not visit this board much, as it usually ends up turning me off. In just about every case I've looked at on the board, everyone seems VERY pro-prosecution, convicting the defendants in your own court of public opinion, without ANY weighing of the evidence. It does not seem to be very useful, seems to get most of you wound up, without much objective thought and considering the case from both sides. I do not know why this is. Maybe people who think about cases from the defendant's side quit coming to your board.
With that said, I think he will walk. I am sure he is guilty, but the evidence is weak as hell. The who, what, when, where, and how have not been proven by the evidence shown. No physical evidence to place him there, we do not know what he did to her. The when? We probably do know that... as well as the where. The how is left to pure speculation. Even though I know he's guilty, I would not feel comfortable convicting him based on the evidence presented. Thats the way the ball bounces!!
Technically I do agree with you from a purely legal standpoint. One thing we have seen is that the defense has pulled out all stops manipulating the system, getting away with "murder" as they say because the judge sustains their objections and makes pro-defense rulings. The jury is also told to disregard this or that ... I don't think that is possible in the larger context. They can't convict on something they are ordered to disregard, but it can percolate in their consciousness as part of the big picture.
The jury is charged to listen to the evidence and come to a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. I think the key word is "reasonable". IMO they can convict him on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence by common sense deductions, including the same "lack of evidence" that proves she drowned because of AN ACCIDENT. The crime scene (even if not processed by CSI) lacks evidence to prove she was planning on bathing or bathing (where were her discarded clothes?) and the so-called medical history is sketchy and unconvincing.
Put that together with the threats, the letters, the conversation with the pastor, those not being just random occurrences. The elephant in the room: The 4th wife who can't testify herself because either nobody can find her or she doesn't want to be found might not stand on it's own but it's like the pinch of yeast in the dough, without it the bread falls flat.
We have an idea of WHO did it, but the defense is fighting to keep out the WHY. This is the next piece jury might be struggling to fit into that puzzle, BUT by virtue of the fact that the defense CONSTANTLY objects to every potential witness or piece of evidence, I, as a juror am thinking: What's the problem? Let ME listen to this and decide. Otherwise you are trying to hide something you don't want me to hear. My next logical thought would be to figure this hidden information fits into all of the above.
The sticking point is proving where, how and when this happened. Surely the first autopsy revealed approximate time of death, etc. She drowned. Well it's difficult to drown in a dry bathtub and you can deduce approximate times by her hair being wet with blood that is still coagulating. Dried blood has had time to dry and wet blood indicating it would have been sooner.
I am hoping the prosecution will put their theory of the murder itself out in their closing argument. As a juror, I am convinced that DP did it, I just want to know how....but I don't need to know. Because I know that woman did not end up curled up in a round bathtub on her own and she was not taking a bath, and I think it's more than a coincidence that a fourth wife is not around to tell us why SHE was anxious to leave this monster, as well...