I believe the last two months the prosecution definitely provided a prima facie—a sufficient case for a conviction. If the evidence against Charles Merritt isn't sufficient for a conviction, then most of the trials in this country wouldn't have enough evidence sufficient for a conviction. Seriously, think of all the cases being tried where the evidence isn't as good as this. No-body cases for example, no weapon cases, no eye-witness cases, no ear-witness cases.
I've also thought that people who don't find the evidence against Charles Merritt prima facie, then they must be expecting a 1080p video of Charles bashing each one of the McStay's heads in or a trustworthy eye-witness to the murders who has never told a lie. I rarely see any trials with that kind of direct evidence. Most trials in this country are based on circumstantial evidence—part of the law. The prosecution doesn't have to prove Charles guilty for absolute certainty. The jurors can have some doubt.
Definitely a prima facie case, IMO.
Those who are not guilty swayed, please weigh-in. What kind of evidence would you have wanted to see to be able to convict Charles Merritt?