Testimony continued yesterday in the Maureen and Bob McDonnell corruption trial as the prosecution brought more witnesses to the stand. There were no major revelations but trial junkies were treated to a number of small but telling details.

Snake oil. We’ve known from the beginning that Bill Hazel, former governor McDonnell’s secretary of health and human resources, was skeptical of Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams, Sr.’s claims regarding the company’s Anatabloc supplements. We just didn’t know how skeptical. It turns out that Hazel regarded Williams as one step removed from a snake oil salesman. He found Williams’ claims “unbelievable,” adding, “I won’t even put the stuff in my mouth.” What’s not clear is how forcefully he conveyed that skepticism to the McDonnells.

A couple in love. The McDonnells struck Sarah Scarbrough, then-director of the Executive Mansion, as a “happy, in-love couple.” The governor made time for his family and “worshiped the ground” that Maureen walked on, frequently kissing her on the cheek. Scarbrough’s testimony buttressed that of Mary-Shea Sutherland, the first lady’s chief of staff, that the McDonnells had regular family dinners together and made romantic gestures to one another. Sutherland had described previously how Maureen had sought to purchase a yellow dress because the governor had “fallen in love with her in yellow,” and how Bob had composed her a “lovely” poem. Then, of course, there was the infamous $6,000 Rolex watch that Maureen gave Bob for Christmas.

These recollections seemingly conflict with the defense’s claim that the couple’s relationship was so rocky that they barely spoke to one another, making it implausible that they would conspire on how to trade favors for gifts with Williams. However, Scarbrough did say she did not believe that the couple communicated well with each other.

Scarbrough also confirmed Sutherland’s testimony that Maureen was often sad and upset and that her management style was “her way or no way.” The first lady also could be sneaky. On more than one occasion she would invoke her husband’s name to get things done, such as the time she ordered Anatabloc placed in gift bags handed out at a function when, in fact, the governor had asked for no such thing.

Maureen’s friend. One of the few concrete actions Bob McDonnell took on behalf of Jonnie Williams was setting up an interview with health secretary Hazel. As Hazel recounted the event, the governor told him that Williams was a “very good friend” of his wife’s and “he wanted me to meet with him.” That quote supports my narrative that Maureen was the driving force behind granting favors to, and soliciting gifts from, Williams (again, with the possible exception of the real estate loans), and that (most of the time) McDonnell went along to avoid conflict with his wife. By asking Hazel to meet with a good friend of his wife, as opposed to a good friend of his, he was distancing himself from the request.

More meddling. Hazel’s testimony highlighted another favor Maureen did for Williams: meddling in a “Healthcare Leaders” luncheon at the governor’s mansion organized in February 2012. Maureen insisted upon adding multiple guests affiliated with Star Scientific to the guest list. Hazel refused to use his department’s budget to pay for the added guests. ““I was not excited to see these outsiders, who were not considered leaders, involved,” Hazel said.

I’m still sticking with my narrative that the McDonnell marriage was a mess. Even bad marriages have ups as well as downs, depending upon the mood swings of the more erratic partner. I find it entirely plausible that Bob would try to sooth an unhappy spouse, who felt lonely and neglected, through occasional displays of affection. I also find it plausible that the first couple would try to put on a brave front for the benefit of outsiders. Still, there’s no denying that the testimony is ambiguous. Any objective person would have to remain open-minded on the issue.

A reminder to my blog critics: An interpretation of the testimony that says Maureen was the motive force behind the exchange of gifts and favors with Williams while Bob went along reluctantly to avoid conflict (with my usual caveat regarding McDonnell’s submission of incomplete information on loan documents)  does not justify any illegal or unethical actions either one of them might have taken. People do things they shouldn’t do for all sorts of reasons — greed, lust, revenge, whatever. A reluctant lawbreaker is a lawbreaker nonetheless. By exploring the personal dynamics in the McDonnell family, I am not “defending” anyone. I am not trying to exonerate anyone. I’m simply trying to understand what went so wrong and reach a conclusion, as the jury will have to do, of whether the McDonnells are guilty or innocent of the charges with which they are being tried.