Well, of course, we have all heard the old idiom, "The Devil's in the Details." However, in the context of this, and most trial cases, the narrative plays a huge role with regard the jury, being the fact finders, final findings. While we can hash the guilty/not guilty, whodunnit, until the moon turns blue, I do think this case presents a window into why some defendants, whom we may think are as guilty as sin (aka Casey Anthony) go free, and some, whom we may believe are innocent, are convicted. In the end, the Devil is truly in the narrative. And that is why I've decided to start this thread... to discuss the various aspects of the narratives presented. That said, I'll start with Kratz. In an over-simplified nutshell, Mr. Kratz puts forward that Ms. Halbach was targeted by SA, and that he proceeded to abduct her, rape her, shoot her, and burn her remains. And then, he sets out to prove his narrative by providing various pieces of evidence. In a similarly over-simplified nutshell, Buting & Strang put forward that Ms. Halbach was killed by someone else, and that her remains, the car, the blood in the car, the bullet fragment, and the key, were planted by Manitowoc SD officers, whose goal was to get SA locked up. During the process of the trial, we find that there is really no forensic evidence to support that Ms. Halbach death occurred as Kratz described. That is, outside of the RAV4 key with SA's DNA and the bullet fragment with Ms. Halbach's DNA, there is really nothing even remotely concrete to indicate she was not only raped but killed in SA's home or garage. However, Kratz narrative was, unfortunately based upon the coerced confession of SA's nephew, BD. So, that isn't really surprising. Now, Buting & Strang's narrative is equally tough to prove. After all, the RAV4 was found on the property, along with Ms. Halbach's remains and personal items, such as her cell phone. And, of course, the key and the bullet fragment with her DNA, regardless of whether or not you think it was planted. Moreover, they are not allowed to point a finger at someone else, nor are they allowed to speculate with regard to motive of said 3rd party. So, you basically have two, somewhat paper-thin, narratives. This, btw, is what juries base their final decision upon. Yes, evidence and facts are important. However, both the prosecution and defense present their narratives in their opening statements, and then set out to prove those narratives. So, you basically have SA, the last known person to see Ms. Halbach alive, her car and remains found on his property vs the claim that LEOs found Ms. Halbach's remains somewhere else and proceeded to plant evidence to frame SA, due to the pending $36M lawsuit. Wrt planting, etcetera, the more things that are alleged to be planted, the greater the conspiracy and the resulting coverup involving multiple people, must be. And, the more people involved in a conspiracy, the more likely things will start leaking. The above reasons are why I think Kratz was able to secure a conviction for SA. BD is another story altogether. And, actually, I really still need to read his trial transcripts. In any event, I figured I'd start this thread so people can chime in on their take of the narratives, why they think they worked, or why they should not have worked, for that matter.