I think the prosecutors decided to do a sort of linear presentation--that is, to go from beginning to end, timewise. Beginning with the crisis of Laci "missing", and developing from there. Sort of following the path that the investigation appears to have followed.
But maybe it would have been better if they had grouped their witnesses into categories: first, the time/events witnesses, that is, the people who could recount how things unfolded in time. (And they have presented those.) Then, perhaps, the witnesses who tended to show a financial motive. Then, the witnesses who may have shown other motives: Scott's not wanting to be a father, and Amber and her friends. Then, maybe they could concentrate on the Bay and go into the dogs, and into whatever they did find in the Bay. And maybe leave the jury with the dreadful images of the remains washed up on shore.
One thing I know they shouldn't be doing is presenting too many cumulative witnesses. For example, was it really necessary to present ALL the ladies from that clinic? (I'm talking about the non-M.D.'s.) And was it really necessary to put on so many officers (non-detectives) who were clearly at the house that night doing similar things? They COULD save some of these cumulative witnesses for rebuttal, if necessary, it seems.
About the jury consultants: yes, you can decide WHICH jurors, and which kind of people, you want, BUT there is still an element of chance in jury selection. It is done by process of elimination. I can only tell you what happens in my state, which is not California. Here, they "strike" a jury. They parade in a bunch of people (absolute minimum allowed is 36 for a capital case), and they question them, and they "thank and excuse" the persons they know they DON'T want. Each side gets 12 strikes (peremptory challenges), and they alternate, with the prosecutor striking one, then the defense, and so on. Then those who are still left standing move into the jury box.
You may run out of peremptory challenges, see, and still not be happy with those remaining. I've never seen it done where they had only the minimum allowable number of jurors in the pool--they've always had more. If you run out of peremptory challenges, you can't strike people you don't want, UNLESS you can find a way to challenge them for cause. You get an unlimited number of challenges for cause, BUT you have to successfully show cause. "Cause" is defined by a certain statute. Some examples of it are that the person says he/she can't be fair; or they are hard of hearing; or they are a relative of some party in the case, or of one of the attorneys (close relative), or perhaps they turn out to be a convicted felon.
So, suppose you've used up all your strikes, and you can't find any reason to challenge for cause the remaining people you don't want. They will go on the jury unless your opponent uses HIS strikes to eliminate them.
Thank you for your post on how you might present the evidence. It was very interesting and I can see how your approach might be easier for the jurors to follow.