But the prosecution doesn't have to present a second by second account of what happened to show murder actually happened. Neither do they need to trace every mark on his body back to the object that made it. This is reasonable doubt, not beyond any uncertainty. They have so far proven she was there, she was very drunk, she admitted to being in a fight, she accelerated backward with her foot 75% to the floor reaching 24mph in 60 feet, her tail light is broken, his DNA is on it, the pieces of tail light are in the yard and on the street, pieces of tail light are on his shirt, broken glass from the one he was holding in his hand as he left the bar were in the yard with him, and she knew exactly where to find him and speculated that she may have hit him, and he is dead.
The defense wants you to believe that all those things above are false or fabricated, and that he went into a house full of people, including law enforcement officers, all of them are now lying, he got beat up and bitten by their dog, then they dragged him out in the street to die and they were smart enough to plant him right on top of his broken glass. Without presenting a single piece of evidence any of this is real.
The defense's case is beyond ludicrous.