state says it still has stuff to test, doesn't sound to me like the slam dunk the state said it was when he was arrested,
so far all the evidence I have heard is he had blood on his shorts and moved a shotgun that had blood on it, he admits he was in trailer and saw bodies so defence can argue he got blood on him then, depends whose blood also, if it was Michaels (the teenage boy who had survived the initial attack but died later) then he should have his blood on him as according to him he found Michael at the door of the trailer and must have touched him when he realised he was alive,
the shotgun he said he moved as I have read he said he believed it was stolen so he moved it, he needs to explain why he even touched it, and why he removed it when LE has testified that he saw blood on it when he looked in Guys car, why would you touch a shotgun with blood on it when you had come home and found dead bloody bodies everywhere, who were your family, but then people do react/act in mystifying ways be they guilty or innocent when confronted with things like this,
not evidence but he admits he smoked crack night of murders, that is all that's been released so far,