Those, like me, who believe the wrong man might be in prison do so because the evidence didn't prove the case, not because the evidence was circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is plenty if it sufficiently proves the case. It didn't here. And the conviction relied on the worst possible evidence: eyewitness testimony. In the JY trial, the eyewitness testimony was completely unreliable. They needed the eyewitness testimony because without it, the math for the gas consumption didn't work.
There are two big concerns for me as to this case.
1. The evidence was insufficient on its own to justify a conviction. On the contrary, the evidence pointed toward innocence. Do I think it was possible he did it? Yes, because the evidence doesn't prove he didn't do it either. But it certainly did not meet a standard of proof that would be sufficient for me to convict. And it didn't provide a standard of proof for many on the first jury either. Which leads to the second point:
2. The use of the civil case was unjust. The purpose of the civil case was to force JY to be deposed so that the deposition could be used against him in court. This is a run around the fifth amendment. When that didn't work, they had him declared "slayer" which then they used against him in the retrial. I see this again as a violation of the fifth amendment, as his silence was used against him in a criminal trial. On its face, this is unconstitutional. He was being compelled to be a witness against himself. Whether you think JY guilty or not, this should not be acceptable in today's justice system.
I want justice for Michelle Young. Putting the wrong guy in prison for her murder is not justice.