Prosecutors kept pushing the "his DNA was all over the crime scene" narrative. It was his house, so of course, his DNA will be everywhere. That proves nothing.
The defense kept connecting that over-reach to every other piece of evidence they presented. The jury started questioning everything else, wondering what other lies were coming from the prosecutors. The lack of chain of custody of evidence, the conclusions that were not reasonably substantiated by that (now questionable) evidence, the constant hype over the crime scene. Even the famous gloves that shrunk - because they got wet, and the prosecution was clueless.
So the trial did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Case closed.
Many believe he did it, many do not. One side will never convince the other side.
|