It surely looks to me as if he is a bit hemmed in. So what sort of defense do you think his attorneys will mount, assuming that there is no plea agreement?
I'll leave that for EA's counsel to figure out. Without knowing all the specifics of all the evidence, it's hard to know if there's a weak point to attack, but if the evidence is as we've been told, they have a daunting challenge at best.
The trunk evidence of "Christina's DNA and blood" is a biggie by itself, but EA's ensuing lies and behavior create added huge problems. Do they expend their "reasonable doubt" card on the lies ("I didn't recall
and was confused after the fact") or on the DNA ("I do recall
, and here's what really happened"). He can't credibly say (and try to counter) both, yet imo he has to overcome both if he's to get a jury to believe he didn't abduct CM.
And then there are the issues of "Christina is still missing" plus the potential for a capital murder charge, adding problems on other levels.
Some cases are just completely DOA for the perp, and the best angle is to admit you did wrong, and try to cut your losses and negotiate a mitigated sentence. But not sure that EA is wise enough to recognize that.
They interviewed him several times before he was declared a POI, during which time he would not have been read his Miranda rights. I mean he would have had to be declared a suspect for them to do that, wouldn't he? Were all these interviews informal, I am wondering? Would he have been free to leave at any time? Just hoping that there is nothing his attorney can bring up here that was in any way improper.
Per what we've heard, the various EA interviews were voluntary (and therefore wouldn't have required Miranda warnings). What was said can and will be used against him, without a need to warn him of that truth.
JMO, the defense attorneys would likely only use it [blackout claim] to explain any inconsistent statements by EA to LE & media.
They can try, of course. I think it would be problematic for him to claim he remembers some things but not others, and "I don't recall what happened" certainly doesn't allow him a way to explain away her DNA and blood is in his trunk. Yet if he can't explain that somehow ....
There's also the underlying problem of him taking the stand at all. Without doing so it's going to be hard for the defense to affirmatively offer ANY real explanations for anything. They could try to discredit the DNA/blood evidence, invent an alternate boogeyman, and hope that's enough.
OTOH, if he does take the stand, what kind of witness would he be? And how would he respond to cross? With the proper framework during the state's case in chief, using the videos and body language experts, I think EA would be the STATE's best witness if he testified, and unintentionally ensure a quick conviction. No easy solutions for the defense atty here.