We are all pretty aware that in this case there is much more circumstance evidence than direct evidence. However, in reality, circumstantial evidence is no doubt an important and valid tool used effectively to convict in both civil and in criminal trials.
Lacey Petersons murder for example, her husband was convicted and is on death row, due to primarily circumstantial evidence.
Certainly, there are many facts presented so far in this trial that do not necessarily prove ASs culpability, such as AS having considerable knot tying knowledge, his admitting masturbating immediately before finding RZ body, his testimony that he was the last known person to see RZ, him having no alibi or witness that he was with anyone else at the time of RZ death, the fact he heard and saw nothing at all to indicate another person had entered the home, the painted message being relevant to a very limited circle of the family at the time it was painted, including AS...all are purely circumstantial pieces of evidence.
Re the DNA - I personally view the availability of testable DNA evidence as a very powerful tool in the exoneration of a suspect. However, a scene completely void of a potential perpetrators DNA evidence cannot exonerate or exclude that individual - I see DNA as simply a powerful matching tool, if and when it is available.
I think we should consider that there were many legitimate murder conviction prior to DNA testing, and where cases have been overturned, and individuals exonerated, it is when available DNA is found to not match the convicted persons DNA, not when there is none found to test.
If anything, the fact there is no DNA contamination on RZ body after a prolonged, acknowledged, lengthy and direct contact ( cutting down, mouth to mouth, CPR etc) suggests to me a greater likelihood that AS could well have been in the hanging room as he was at the cut down - as the complete lack of his DNA is consistent in BOTH scene of death situations.
If there is no shedding in the cut down scenario, it is not unreasonable to conclude there would likely be no shedding in the hanging room scenario as well.
The only DNA match- is in that there is none found in either situation.
So, in my opinion, the jury has enough combined direct and circumstantial evidence, combined with testimony - to find AS the likely perpetrator - at this stage of the proceedings.
That said, the defense still has a considerable way to go, so their presentations may change that for me, but they currently have quite a catch up job.
Just my opinion 😊