Towards the end of Faulkner's testimony, there was no need to take notes because the unrefuted testimony of a witness hired by the prosecution stated with little or no reservations that the body could not have been disposed at the site where it was found prior to 2/16 or only a few days prior.
When asked if he knew of any possible explanation for the absence of particular insect activity that should have been present if the body was disposed at a time that could tie DW to the disposal, the answer was an unqualified "NO", and Dusek didn't even bother to recross at that point. In essence, Dusek conceeded the point that DW could not have disposed of the body.
At least some members of the jury must have seen this coming and at that point, there was no reason to additional notes.
What does the prosecution have for evidence at this point? One or two hairs in DW's house or motor home that can be identified as Danielle's, and a blood spot on DW's green jacket that apparently was not subjected to blood splatter evaluation and a very small blood spot in DW's motor home carpet. Could it be that Danielle had a bloody nose at DW's house when selling the GS cookies, dripped blood on the jacket undetected. Then there was the dog that scratched Danielle a day or two before the GS cookie selling trip. Danielle could have either accidentally or intentionally picked at the scab, causing blood to be deposited on the jacket.
Remember that the dry cleaner did not notice blood on the jacket when DW brought it in for cleaning, so why would anyone expect DW to notice. Certainly he would have checked for blood on it if he had worn it during a possible abduction, murder and disposal of Danielle's body. For that matter, one would think that he would have disposed of the jacket, because its absence would likely have not even been noticed. On the other hand, criminals do make mistakes and do stupid things; that's why many of them get caught.
Then there is the speculation that Danielle may have gone into the MH to play, with or without permission. The testimony of a neighbor about another child of the VDs playing in the street leaves the impression that the VDs did not closely supervise their children was likely offered to counteract the VDs testimony that they did watch their children as closely as they claimed.
DW may have killed Danielle, but there is presently so much doubt as to the theory of the prosecution or evidence to support that theory that a reasonable person could not say he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If DW actually murdered Danielle, I think the evidence could and should have been developed further before charging him and the blame for an incorrect 'not-guilty' would have to be laid squarely at the feet of a prosecutor desperate for re-election, a point Feldman may very effectively use in his closing argument.