I've been a little too jetlagged this week to stay totally on top of the developments in the Da Vinci Code trial, so I'm only just now distilling all the accounts of Dan Brown's testimony...Cesar Soriano of USA Today hints that Brown's wife may hold the key to resolving the allegations that the core of DVC was lifted out of the conspiracy theories of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Over at the NYT, the arts section stops relying on pithy summaries from Lawrence van Gelder and sends Sarah Lyall over to the courthouse for a full report on Brown's first day of testimony (though they were back to capsule items for day two).

In the British press, Hugh Davies of the Telegraph consider's Brown's well-thumbed copy of Holy Blood, while Alan Hamilton at the Times focuses on the notes in its margins. Maev Kennedy continues her blogging coverage for the Guardian with more about the research copy, including the fascinating tidbit that it looks so battered because Brown's lawyers had already been at it for the previous (unsuccessful) lawsuit filed by Lewis Purdue.