have been watching obsessively, and lurking the same way, trying not to post too often, but just an observation:
i think the problem the DT has at this point is that their case asks the jury to ignore the defendant's behaviour, lies, omissions, diaries, and evidence to the contrary and believe that she was a battered woman who fought for her life, but the Prosecution presents a case that makes logical sense and asks you to believe the defendant's behaviour, diaries, evidence and their own common sense.
the defense says yes, she's a liar, but believe her anyway. the prosecution says she's a liar, don't believe her.
based on everything we've heard from the jury so far in the form of their questions, it sure seems like they're going with what makes sense, at least so far.