He's reminding me a lot of Stephen McDaniel, the neighbor/classmate/perp from the Lauren Giddings case. Weeks after being arrested and giving the world's most self-incriminating interview, his mom and lawyer(s) were yapping about how sweet, innocent, condom-stealing, panty-hiding, master-key-copying, child




-possessing, scratch-covered, hacksaw-buying, cannibalism-story-posting, perfect-murder-planning, godfearing, cute-as-can-be Stephen was viciously framed by the maintenance man who he "suddenly remembered" seeing on Lauren's porch the (assumed) night of her murder.
So, maybe like... a .07% chance. But with no cause of death (which I
hope beyond all hope will not be the case with AM or SC), it's scary to think that could be enough to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Stephen was a law student and was thus very aware of many loopholes and procedural intricacies. RAT is a serial offender who's somehow squirmed his way out of much of his prior sentencing.
Just read the comments on well, any article about a high profile sexually motivated crime. There will always be the (vaguely misogynistic..) skeptic touting "innocent before proven guilty" as though there's not already an enormous burden of proof on the state, as though numerous experts on a federal level haven't already considered this. Odds are, that "skeptic" will be summoned for jury duty sometime soon. And lawyers like Stephen McDaniel's and RAT's would love to buy them a beer afterwards.
Not suggesting a conspiracy, just a rather unfortunate consequence of successfully gambling an alternative explanation.