He wasn't convicted based on circumstantial evidence, which points away from him such as foreign DNA and prints. JY was convicted on direct evidence in the form of witness testimony, including two significant prejudicial civil lawsuits. The Judge called him a slayer! I think next time around his defense has no choice but to question aggressively. It's not a matter of scapegoating, it is a matter of his own life.
JMO
My bolding. I agree that the defense certainly can take this tactic. But theoretically, this forum shouldn't be about representing the defense of JY nor prosecuting JY, but rather seeking justice by "sleuthing" for the killer or killers. Defense attorneys have the responsibility to zealously represent their clients. The prosecution should theoretically seek justice, but more often they are concerned with closing cases and conviction rates. As an independent observer, I am more interested in learning who actually killed MY, without leaving collateral damage along the way in the form of ruined lives and false accusations.