I agree. To this point in court, I’m wide open. They haven't proven to me, beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.Your theory goes down the toilet if he has blood splatter on his clothes, although that evidence has it's own doubts. Expert initially said the was no blood spatter, then changed and said there was blood spatter. Plus there is not enough of his shirt left for someone else to test.
If I were sitting on the jury and only know what evidence has been presented so far, I would be wide open, but knowing other evidence mentioned in this thread, I think he's guilty. But we'll see how that goes in court. Would not surprise me if there is a hung jury.
I think it’s likely that he did or had someone else do it. But that jury has to presume he’s innocent until the state does a much better job of proving it.
Last edited: