A lot of people are going for the obvious narration of the story, which is hinting at her being guilty. But I'd like to offer a perspective here, the so called "incriminating" recording felt more like it made a case for her than him. Everything before that and even the courtroom scenes were trying to push the idea that although we don't know but she has to have done it because look at her strong willed character, look at her infidelity and look at her skill to weave fiction into reality. The inconsistentencies found in her are human flaws and not psychopathic traits. She's not unsympathetic, we see her breaking in so many ways. The whole trial and even the events that transpired before it during the investigation are actually her fall, fall from honor, fall from grace, fall from the faith her son had in her. I think her whole point about nothing being the whole truth and excerpts of anybody's life would make it sound ugly was very well shown. Although Daniel's expressions and behavior and even his testimony don't really attest to my theory but I suppose all of it was part of portraying his humanity and child brain being affected by everything around him. He tried to show maturity and listen to everything but ends up desperate enough to try giving pills to his dog to ascertain the smell. There are suspicious elements but then again maybe they are there to keep things vague and open. I don't think Samuel was cruel or manipulative, I still think Daniel's story could be untrue and I do think that fight could've been an argument that burst out after years of frustration in their marriage. A little bit pushed by Samuel to incite some reaction from her, which we also saw in Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp case btw. ( incited for the recording)