That’s the whole point. But I come back to Scott Peterson. The jury got it right for the wrong reasons, and if you get it right for the wrong reasons, you’re still wrong in my book.
It won’t come to that here, as I’m sure he’s going to have the blood of at least one victim in his car.
But. I’d rather them focus on the wrong things than not, if the evidence shapes up like we already know, and is confirmed.
His dna should not be there. He should have never ever been in that location, and he never should have had a single contact with any victim.
Prove one of those first two things true, and the case will flow from there.
I think all three will be confirmed.
my point is that manipulating the jury with the house should never be okay, and evidence rules support that. As to the rest of the evidence, I stand by my statements that there's not a compelling amount that we know of, and I won't make assumptions. I might believe that he did it, but the fact that I can weave an alternate explanation that explains all of the evidence we know about, without being the least bit outlandish, and answers all of the questions I've raised tells me that there are holes. The totality of the evidence and the details matter, and fine points will hang up a jury or juror and change a decision, imo jmo ime and lots of cases to support that.
editing to delete a misinterpretation