Welcome to the thread, e-sherlockholmes!
I thought he did a pretty good job of declaring his innocence too. And the father.
"Ideally we'd like to see proven reports that physically links him on location and proves he was actually on the highway at those times the incidents took place too." Yes! And in juicy detail, if at all possible! You have to worry about how good the chain of custody could be at a pawn shop.
I don't think the suspect is that bright, shall we say. I don't think he is some sort of mastermind or master manipulator. Therefore, I thought his demeanor in court with his answers denying any guilt, seemed semi-believable to me because he has no filter and lack self awareness, making his actions more believable.
I think this is a guy who doesn't know the legal system well. Doesn't play the 'shut up and let the lawyer speak' games that some of the wiser folks will play. The suspect simply spoke his mind, uninhibited, and he wanted to tell the authority figure, the judge, he's innocent thinking it makes any difference. Either its that, or he really is a master manipulator, because I kinda semi-believed him.
That being said, he could still be guilty though and LEO caught the right guy. What I'd like prosecutors to prove is something that links him on location to every separate shootings that occurred. Only if they can prove that, does that prove guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to me.
About the father... wow he cleaned up nice? I remember an ABC interview where they cold-knocked on his door right after the son's arrest. He wasn't even dressed and looked really trashy. Then, in the sit down TV interview, he was dressed, and he was eloquent in the way he talks. I was shocked at the transformation. And he made some good points too. Nowadays, everybody knows about ballistics. You have to be a moron to sell a gun with the same barrel used in a crime. Even the dumbest criminal knows to file out or damage the barrel before discarding a gun used in a crime.
Then again, this suspect doesn't appear to be a Rhode's scholar type. Is it possible someone is that dumb to commit a crime and then sell that same gun, un-tampered with, to allow forensics to be done on the gun and later get said seller convicted? Perhaps there are people that dumb. But most criminals today would probably not have done that. And if this suspect happens to be smart enough to not leave clues to incriminate himself like that, as I suspect most people would be nowadays, then this does seem like somebody is setting the suspect up.
That being said though, the whole crime spree itself of just randomly shooting up cars on a freeway is pretty stupid too, because clearly its open space with a lot of people and cops and cameras, and they do crime like this out in the open? The suspect is bound to get caught. So again, maybe the real criminal ain't the smartest tool in the shed either, in that case it would give credence to the current suspect. i.e. its some gun nut redneck with zero sophistication doing stupid illegal crap not giving any thought to his actions at all, no different to 'shooting squirrels' out in the woods.
.