In some small crevice of my brain trying to figure out what defense might do since we now know pretty much what the prosecution story is....I wonder if the fact that Barry was interviewed so many times for so many different people if that the story will be that he was so frustrated by being asked over and over and over again the same questions he just made up stuff to get them to go away. Some of his answers were so silly they defy reason. But it is believable that he shot chipmunks to keep them away from the house, it is believable that he pitched trash all over the place, it is believable he harvested deer antlers (illegally) and most of all it is possible that he watched Elk to see their path so he could find shed antlers next season that would be pretty normal behavior..although why he said that when GPS did not show that supports the argument that he made up stuff no matter what LE person asked them and it shows LE also fed him untruths, which never goes well with juries as it feels too much like entrapment. As someone pointed out he's a liar but it might not mean he's a murderer. For me, the airplane mode is a tougher one to explain, the flat out untruths about napping in the hotel for an afternoon is a tough one for me. For the prosecution they need to explain why they didn't test the coffee cup and the rest of the DNA results in a way someone like me can understand easily.
Aside from opening and closing arguments, how do you propose the Defense establish that Barry lied because he was bored, annoyed and tired of being asked about his wife's disappearance?
And do you really think that approach would help him - at all? I can't imagine jurors in a jury room buying that. It's still lying. And it's lying in response to new evidence against him, as they gather it. Rather damning, IMO. They'll use a timeline.
BTW, if Barry was shooting chipmunks all the time, as he says, there wouldn't be dozens of chipmunks at the perimeter of the yard and near the house, where his phone places him. Indeed, others in Salida say they rarely see a chipmunk and their backyard isn't exactly chipmunk habitat (unless someone was luring them with food).
Also odd that elk were in herds at a time of year that they don't live in herds, isn't it? Who do you think the jury will believe? A man who has changed his story SO many times (and only when confronted with digital evidence) or a wildlife expert?
What other DNA results (besides the cup) do you wish to have explained?