It is not up to the defendant to point to evidence that is potentially exculpatory. All the defense has to do is put enough questions in the minds of the jury about his guilt. Without the DNA, this case has reasonable doubt all over it. With the DNA, it becomes a bit harder, but not impossible.
MOO.
Not impossible, I agree. But extremely highly unlikely more like it.
IMHO this one is very clear cut to me from the standpoint of a jury:
1) DNA, DNA, DNA... cannot be explained away. His and only his DNA on the sheath. And on the inside of a snap. Not the outside cow hide as if he brushed up against it somewhere unknown.
2) Circumstantial evidence that when taken in its totality, will lead a reasonable person to only one conclusion: I think it will be that BK did it. Namely: a) white Elantra with only 1 license plate, b) eyewitness description that he cannot be excluded, c) GPS/cell phone data heading in the direction of Moscow then mysteriously showing back up 10 miles south of town in the wee hours before and after the murders, d) BK behaving suspiciously in PA which will be interpreted as hiding evidence.
What are the chances of having an Elantra? (my guess is 3%). And a white Elantra nonetheless (20%) And with only one license plate = let's say 8%. Someone driving at 3AM (5% but only that high because it is a college town), % of people who turned off their cell phone around the time of the murder maybe 4% (90% of the world is still asleep). Yeh, I know you can't get % phone turned off data. Bottom line, multiply all those unlikely things together and you get 0.0005% chance that all these coincidences happened randomly to BK.
Yes, I made these stats up but the point is when you string together several highly unlikely events, you get an astronomical low chance that it would be coincidence.
I feel that jurors will be given a nice presentation doubting how can there be a series of coincidences like this just randomly happen?.
JMO... but based on some experience.