Definitely a smoking gun, in the old sense.
Good point about how any fairly intelligent criminal would, in fact, hide evidence. And not leave any evidence.
His goal, IMO, was to commit the "perfect crime." As so many have done, before him.
He, like most criminals, thinks that getting rid of ALL evidence is good - they don't know what might be exonerating.
IMO.
Exactly!
I watched a murder case unfold and the lead special agent listed evidence of murder kit items that were purchased and the defendants could not account for where any of the items went because they sunk the metal items in a pond and burned the ones that were flammable. It will be circumstantial evidence against BK if he can't produce his murder kit purchases - if LE finds a digital trail.
You have mentioned the Van shoes many times, I think you will find this true story interesting:
In the same murder case the mother and father and their 2 grown sons murdered 8 members of another family. There were 4 murder scenes and 2 different sized bloody shoe prints were found at 2 of the crime scenes.
In a search of the suspects' property LE found a Walmart shoe receipt showing a purchase of 2 pairs of shoes. The tread and size of these purchased shoes matched the tread and size of the bloody shoe prints that were found. LE searched every Walmart in a 50 mile radius of the suspects' house and found the Walmart where the shoes were purchased and found camera footage of the mother buying the shoes in that Walmart that day.
Agents blindsided the 4 defendants and separated them and confronted them over the shoes. Confronted with the evidence the mother admitted to buying the shoes. LE asked her what she did with the shoes and she said she bought them for her 2 sons but they hated the shoes so she threw them out. The 2 sons denied ever seeing the shoes.
Obviously not being able to produce the shoes looks bad but there are some other interesting details.
The forensic shoe expert noted that the shoe prints showed no tread wear - the tread looked brand new.
The shoe receipt shows the shoes were bought only
3 weeks before the murders. This is more evidence showing the shoes were only purchased for that one night.
Also, during a confession, the younger son pointed out that not only did his mother buy the shoes for him and his brother to wear on the night they committed the 8 homicides, but she deliberately bought the shoes in sizes they did not wear and in a style they never wore.
Thus, I would not see these 2 things as being exculpatory for BK regarding the bloody Van shoe print that was found by DM's door.....
1.) The prosecution shows evidence that BK has never worn Van shoes - doesn't like Van shoes.
2.) The Van shoe print is not the size that BK wears.
And if the Van shoe print shows no tread wear and appears to be like new that just makes it seem, to me, that the Vans were bought to be used for just that one night.
Note that in the searches there were shoes seized but they are not Van shoes and they might not match the size found at the crime scene but that doesn't show exculpatory evidence to me.
2 Cents