Oh I blame the jury, HIM, and the prosecution for not presenting the case to prove guilt. Alot of blame to go around IMO.
DG, I totally agree with you. It's not any one person/peoples fault. Where I fault the jury is for expecting a bow on the package like in CSI shows. There aren't always fingerprints,hairs, and video footage showing the incident. Its kind of up to common sense and a good thorough view of normalcy to decide how reasonable it is for set events to occur/not occur.
He was seen leaving the hotel and never coming back in because the cameras were moved for the first time in TWELVE YEARS! He is an absolute complete and udder slimeball. For the jury to believe him when he said he was smoking is asinine, especially after what the prosecution presented as MORE than enough evidence to ruin his credibility and integrity as a person.
I understand they have to prove he went home, but when the jury displays that they do not think it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt they are showing that they put more faith in the word of JY than in the gas station attendant. HONESTLY, who has more of a reason to lie?! She does not benefit either way, and in fact it would do her quite a disservice to have to testify, be questioned, miss work and probably pay. Common sense is literally null and void in court any more.
It just is not possible to prove rationality around a circumstance, it is something that it takes critical thinkers to really delve into and analyze on their own. If this case was a rope, the gas mileage would be a thread breaking- but it doesn't make all the other threads of MURDER snap too. The burden of proof that the pros hold is a strand short, but still a rope. Given that he could have driven anywhere, gotten gas anywhere, had it with him, met someone, any number of things, leaves possibility, not proof 100%, but combined with the rest its beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because they really fudged up that aspect by avoiding/omitting doesn't cut the rope in 2.
ADA was bad in delivery and connecting the dots, and I really don't know how MF and LF can forgive them for not really banging on certain parts of the drum. Also, some evidence wasn't explicitly there, such as finger prints, because it was his own house, wife, kid, dog, stuff, they were everywhere. Truthfully, the lack of no other prints wasn't emphasized enough, and that's where the prosecution's delivery faltered. I wish they would walk into the house of a random number of people and test a room for hairs/prints/ miscellaneous dna evidence of humans being there. It'd be interesting to know how many unknown hairs there were in comparison to unknown prints. Hairs can transfer from anywhere. If that isn't obvious enough, then make it obvious. Combine these missing lines between the dots with a CSI skewed perception of what guilty looks like, and we have a hung jury.