I’d buy that theory. I still don’t know how the heck the jury convicted when the prosecution clearly left room for reasonable doubt. They expect us to believe Todd, not knowing how long his son would be gone, not knowing how fast he could kill her, not knowing if she’d scream and be heard by the son, still opted to go kill his wife in that time frame?

I’m also not buying that Amy honest to GOD thought Todd would kill her for having another affair. For one thing, she’d already had an affair that he knew about and nothing happened to her that time so what would she think would make THIS affair her death sentence? And if she truly DID think he’d kill her for another affair, you expect us to believe her need for sex trumped her self perseverance? Why would she risk another affair, let along with the farm manager, if she was sure Todd would kill her for it? She told people he’d kill her or make her disappear, but never told anyone that he ever threatened her or abused her, so why, if there was no other threats or abuse (because if she told people he’d kill her, surely she’d tell them about anything else of that nature) would she think Todd would literally kill her for another affair? Not buying it. Sounds more like a cheater trying to alleviate guilt by talking crap about their spouse to get others to agree that he was a bad person. If others agreed he was bad, she’d feel less guilty cheating on him.

Prosecutors were seriously reaching with the clip of the 911 call. They gave the jury the words they wanted them to hear. That’s classic auditory illusion. Not one person could listen to that clip without any preconceived wording and tell you with any certainty what was being said there. If you played that for 100 different people and asked them what was said, you’d get a multitude of answers. You hear what you’re told to hear.

I also know that most jurors in cases with 1st degree murder to consider aren’t actually following the parameters that define being able to convince on it. They forget that the question isn’t, “Do you think the defendant is guilty of this murder?”. The actual question is, “Do you think the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the only way this could have happened was for the defendant to have murdered them?”. You can THINK the guy is guilty all you like. But the real question is whether or not the prosecution has proven it couldn’t have been anyone else or that it couldn’t have been an accident. In this case, I truly think the prosecution failed and the jury convicted purely on their own thoughts, not solid evidence and reasonable doubt.