I believe some are confusing the purpose of some items LE investigated. Just like with in their attempt to find the perp, they begin on those closest to the victim, not to just prove they are the person they're looking for. They're investigating those closest to the victim so they can rule them OUT, and move on.
IMHO, it's the same with possible evidence. They need to look at ALL probabilities and ways the crime COULD have occurred and as each item is eliminated, move on to the next.
Apparently, what some of the even def witnesses have proven, that although some leads didn't pan out, they told the jury LE didn't just have tunnel vision towards JY. It's just that every time something became relevant, it led right back to JY.
JY has NEVER been ruled out as a possible suspect. His remaining silent, COMPLETELY to LE, proved his own undoing. Now his defense team is trying to show LE always were onto JY and showing what they believe as reasonable doubt. But what they've shown me, is LE did look at these possibilities and ruled them OUT.
Even JY's mom showed how she knew alleged evidence, things missing from the house, but she chose NOT to tell LE.
Why would she hold that to herself, when it COULD possibly lead the investigation away from her son and perhaps aid them in catching the murderer?
I bet the jury is asking that themselves right now.
JMHO
fran