Wow....the trial shot bye with little publicity...a shame since I was interested in what sort of case the state actually had. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much reported about the trial itself.
From what I can tell the evidence against him was pretty sketchy - basically he was convicted because he was a dubious character, he knew her and was interested in her, and she was dead.
Issues that I can see with the evidence presented.
Firstly, while it was clear that he was trying to make sure that no one pointed fingers at him, there didn't appear to be anything connecting him directly with AD on that night. They were not seen together, and, as far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be anything linking them physically.
The connection (and the support for sexual assault) was the semen sample they found. This apparently was from him and ended up in the car through incidental contact, which the investigators theorized was from his shoe? Some DNA from AD was there, but so was DNA from another unknown male. The prosecution suggested that this was from contamination, but if that was so, then the DNA from AD could also be from contamination. It might also have been deposited there on a completely different day, they wouldn't be able to show when it got in the car. The problem I think is that if AD was in the vehicle, then there should be lots of evidence of her there in the form of skin cells, hair, blood (or other fluids, if an assault took place in the vehicle or she was transported in the vehicle after an assault). But, apparently there was nothing. So, I don't understand why the only evidence of her in the vehicle is a single trace, that does not make sense.
Another big problem I can see is the testimony of the GF about what he did that night when he got back home. She claimed he smelled of gasoline and asked her to get rid of his shirt, which she did by tossing it out the window (really??). She claimed that he was bleaching his shoelaces? These items were subsequently recovered. But apparently none of them had evidence of AD on them. Also, the smelling of gasoline thing. The residual smell you can detect after something has been doused in gasoline comes from small amounts of high bioling point organic compounds in the gas. They have a distinctive smell. The problem is that if there was enough there so she could smell them, they would still be there in detectable amounts when the shirt was recovered. So why was none mentioned? Surely they would have looked for that since it would have corroborated her story. There should be traces in the vehicle as well. Also, if he wanted to get rid of his shirt, why not pants and shoes? Anything on the shirt would be on them too. Finally, the bleach thing. While it might get rid of the obvious stains on the shoes, it would not be able to get rid of all trace of biological material. So if these things were there, they should have found them. They should also have found residues from the bleach itself.
What the girlfriend says does not ring true. There doesn't appear to be any significant sign of AD in the vehicle, which is very odd since that presumably is the last place she was before she was killed. There should be tons of material evidence in this case but it appears that there is very little.
Whatever happened to AD I question whether there was any sexual assault, at least on that night. I think that however she was transported, it was probably not in the vehicle AL was driving. I can't say if AL was responsible or not, he might be, but at the very least there must be other people involved. And why was she killed at all, and the body disposed of so publicly? There has to be more to this than what the state claimed in the trial.
If AL's lawyer didn't explore these issues then he probably wasn't very well represented IMO.
I am also disturbed that the jury only took three hours to reach their verdict. There is no way the evidence is even remotely clear cut enough to reach a decision in that time. IMO they convicted him on emotion rather than anything else.