During an interview giving by former prosecutor Ives, he said that there was so much evidence in this case that a detective from the 1960''s or 70's could solve this case, and that was not including the new forensic investigative techniques that investigators have available to them today.
That is why this case is strange. I thought the probable cause affidavit would at least have some sort of strong physical evidence in it. Once investigators had a name they would have all the evidence they needed once they matched it to the evidence at the crime scene.
The discovery evidence was described as voluminous. I suppose that is where all the evidence is regarding the current suspect. It was not in the probable cause affidavit. Maybe he is the killer and there is DNA evidence or some other solid evidence, but at this time it is hard to conclude he is the killer with any certainty. And in my opinion, the video is too grainy to come to any solid conclusion about the person pictured in it. There are certain aspects of the video, like the thin material of the blue jacket, that make me think it is a blue windbreaker and not a blue jacket. But I agree there is no way for sure to come to that conclusion about the jacket.