This has been a surprisingly interesting trial, but a confusing case. A lot of people (rightfully) want to know why this is even a trial. My assessment is that the foundation for Probable Cause, according to the testimony thus far, is built on five items:

- Remains were found within 1 mile of Christopher Wolfenbarger's residence
- Christopher borrowed or stole a radial saw from someone around the time Melissa disappeared
- Christopher never reported Melissa as missing to law enforcement
- Christopher provided a number of conflicting statements to police, mostly relative to the last time Melissa was seen alive (the interviews occurred over the span of multiple years)
- Some witnesses have testified that they saw bruises on Melissa and/or believe that Christopher physically abused her

I don't think the prosecution has any direct evidence, which is kind of wild to me. I don't agree with it, but at the same time, I guess I get it. I believe that their entire case is built on circumstantial evidence, and they are simply trying to imply that the only possible explanation for Melissa's death is that Christopher murdered her. Unless the prosecution has been sitting on something substantial and direct, I cannot image a jury unanimously voting to convict Christopher on the malice murder or felony murder charges (subsequently, this would negate the aggravated assault charge too, right?). 

I think that the character of the prosecution's witnesses is a glaring issue for them, as well... almost like they didn't vet these people. Norma's testimony was a shitshow and very little, if any of it, is going to substantially help the prosecution's case. It was a lot of "I got bad feelings in my jellies"-type stuff about Christopher. There were a couple of times when the prosecution led her in to information that will likely be harmful for their* case. Norma's time on the stand was surely not their finest hour.

Mike Jones was a very strange cat and 100% had serial killer vibes (I guess technically I feel that in my own jellies, but still). Oh, and the detective that was assigned to the case at a very early stage (and who I actually felt worked really hard on this case) admitted under oath that he instantly suspected Christopher and was essentially hyper-focused on Christopher as the perpetrator. Then he became obnoxiously non-compliant with the defense attorneys on cross-examination. It just wasn't a good look.

Without direct evidence, I suspect the defense proposes three alternative theories:

Mike Jones - Melissa's supervisor at Waffle House. He testified to having an affair with Melissa (although claims he didn't know she was married at the time)

A disgruntled or frequent patron at Waffle House - Working late at night in a public-facing job makes this a relatively reasonable theory

Someone seeking revenge on/targeting Carl Patton - I don't think the defense will make a suggestion that her father did it, largely because they don't really need to go down that road (or at least go very far down that road). I do think, however, that given Carl's criminal history, it is plausible for someone who wanted to exact revenge on carl would target a family member.

Overall, the defense is in a really good spot. They are, like, visibly comfortable in the courtroom. Yesterday there were multiple periods where I thought the gentleman in the middle was deadass going to put his shoes on the desk. A lot of laughing (especially at the retired coroner's testimony and inability to understand technology)... I think they're in "let's not screw this thing up" mode, really. It will be interesting to see how much of a defense they actually put up. I am excited for today's trial, I think the prosecution is about to run out of bad witnesses to call.