Oh no...not a single black glove again!! Im having OJ flashbacks
I respectively and highly disagree...MOO what we "know" so far and what was on the PCA is all circumstantial. Any good defense attorney (and BCK has one) can certainly poke holes all in it and show reasonable doubt, many defense attorneys have resonated this in SM and even on WS.
For him to be buried in a conviction LE better have a lot more before the trial begins, I think they will.
Most murder convictions in the US are circumstantial. Nearly all of the serial killers were convicted via circumstantial evidence. There are rarely eyewitnesses to murders. Sometimes the eyewitnesses are babies and small children, but people are convicted of domestic homicide all the time. On circumstantial evidence.
Do you have some examples of cases where the circumstantial evidence is already pronounced at the PCA stage and no conviction was filed?
I think we all believe LE will have way more evidence before trial, but the outlines of the case are already obvious and that's what the jury will hear first. They'll see his car cruising the area, tension building, as the time of the attack approaches. There will be almost no other cars, perhaps only the DoorDash guy. They will see his car turn into the parking areas of 1122 King at around 4:03, and there will be evidence that the murders occurred between 4:04 and 4:20.
The jury will get to ponder that for a day or two. Then, the prosecution will come on with the cell phone data, with him turning his phone off as he drives to the murder scene, turning it back on as he drives to a place where he could dispose of evidence, and which is *not* his direct way home. I believe they'll be able to show that he had never been down to Genesee or Clarkston, as far as his digital footprint shows. Then he goes home, and goes BACK to the crime scene the next morning (enter a forensic psychologist to talk about this).
And that's without the DNA evidence. Then there will be the testimony on his unusual pre- and post- crime behavior. All of that will occur (plus much else) and it will be hard for the defense to refute any of that.
What we all hope will happen is fiber or DNA evidence to remove ALL doubt. But that's not the legal standard.
We even have an eyewitness that can exclude all women, short men, very tall men and men lacking prominent or bushy brow areas.
But it will be his digital footprint that bakes him. The phone shenanigans alone are huge.