Bryan seems like a disorganized, incompetent dolt who masquerades as a successful academic. It is almost inconceivable that he would fail to understand the basics of modern forensics. Either he has been framed, he was acting under the influence of drugs or he was in an extreme mental state of psychosis. Will an IQ test be conducted?
There are lots of disorganized academics who aren't all that competent in real world activities. BK definitely had problems completing previous schooling, and I personally believe there's no evidence that he ever lived outside the parental home. He spent a lot of time online and in reading/thinking.
Almost anyone can snap under stress and behave in ways that look crazy. However, this crime took some planning, which I believe he did. He just didn't know how his own psyche would operate under such extreme conditions. It's a lot like thinking you know what it's like to go through labor and delivery, before you've done it. Or, for that matter, what a broken leg feels like when you've never had one.
I was thinking he probably had some earlier crimes under his belt, but now I'm not so sure. He does look like a complete newbie.
I don't know if I'm interpreting your use of the word "exonerating" the way you meant it but I don't see how items that turn out not to be related to the murders, not usable as evidence against him, exonerating.
If that is his blood on his pillow and mattress cover and he has recently healed injuries, especially if they could be from using a knife, that is not exonerating evidence. If the stains are from red wine, it only exonerates him from bleeding on his bed. MOO
to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship; to clear from accusation or blame… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
I am speaking of the categories typically used by the prosecution and the defense.
The prosecution will claim that evidence is incriminating, the term "exonerating" is used by the defense as a general term for all evidence that helps their case. When discovery happens, most discovery documents mention that all exonerating or potentially exonerating evidence discovered by the prosecution must be produced and given to the defense, as a matter of due process.
It is related to the dictionary definition, but I'm using it in the sense of a process of legal discovery. Perhaps I should use the word "exculpatory" instead, but thought maybe that would pose problems of comprehension.
Here's wikipedia's definition of the Brady rule:
//The
Brady doctrine is a
pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in
Brady v. Maryland (1963).
[2] The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the
defendant in a
criminal case. Exculpatory
evidence is evidence that might
exonerate the defendant.
[3] (my emphasis, complete text with active footnotes posted just below).
en.wikipedia.org
If the evidence *might* exonerate (show innocence) then it is exculpatory as well. And must be produced if the prosecution has any such thing.