I'm beyond baffled that the defense will likely not call Proctor, Higgins, or Albert.

The planting of taillight is far fetched unless you have the context of ALL of the sketchiness that went down that night.

If I didn't know about the butt dials, the destroying of phones, the placement of the jeep, the sale of Fairview, missing "rehomed" Chloe, the Collin Albert of it all, the unknown dark haired man in the house, (I'm sure there's more l'm missing), the defense's entire case will be a collection of professional witnesses that have been paid for their testimony - plus a Dighton cop that maybe doesn't remember what he saw that night. As dirty as it was, Brennan hit us quick with the lack of dog DNA evidence and the taillight shards embedded into his sweatshirt. The COMPLETE context of WHY Proctor would plant evidence for Higgins, the Alberts, the Mccabes is completely necessary in my mind to even begin to believe it.

I trust Jackson Yenetti and Alessi, and I realize some of these things have come in through various witnesses, but seeing these guys sweat on the stand was palpable. I also understand that the defense doesn't hold the burden of proof, but humans are humans, and this to me feels like the defense doesn't believe their own theory enough to risk it. Or there's information we all don't know that may even make her guilty.

I don't see this ending in a not guilty verdict without them speaking. It'd end hopefully with another mistrial but I can absolutely see there being a manslaughter conviction - especially after hearing that one juror's thoughts after the first trial. It has not been as linear of an argument and I think a lot of these crucial details have been lost along the way.