Nah, not really. Before all that shit (and before the CSI effect), nobody had expectations to have that kind of info. People still got convicted all the time. We just all think differently now. In the before-times, youβd still have the addiction, the theft, the boat incident, the shaky alibi (they wouldβve come to the conclusion that he wasnβt at his moms for an hour and a half), the use of his own guns and ammo, etc. In the terms of the prosecution, you still have means, motive, opportunity. Plus, the βitβs always the husbandβ line of thinking.
As Iβve said before, I havenβt followed this case, and I only started watching when he took the stand. Iβm completely unbiased by all the background unlike some of yβall so I figured Iβd share my thoughts from that perspective. Admittedly, maybe my opinion would be different if I were on the jury and heard every bit of testimony, but having watched most everything from the time he took the stand through the prosecutions close, Iβm probably not able to say guilty. Do I think he did it? Yes, I do. Pretty darn confident in that. But do I have ANY doubts? Unfortunately, for those of yβall that really want to see him put away for life, I do. There is little to no direct evidence. The prosecution has not put on a strong case, and the investigation, autopsy, etc appear to have been subpar. Defense council has been far more compelling and effective. There is, in my opinion, a fair amount of room for doubt.