The witness and cop accounts differed.
That the forensics corroborate the cop's version of events would be a bad, bad sign for a conviction. Indictment perhaps, but I can't imagine clearing "beyond a reasonable doubt" if the primary witnesses have either proven themselves unreliable or lying.
That doesn't even mean he's not guilty. But damn it's going to be hard for a jury to convict given disproved witnesses and forensics which at best indicate a struggle, not an execution.
That the forensics corroborate the cop's version of events would be a bad, bad sign for a conviction. Indictment perhaps, but I can't imagine clearing "beyond a reasonable doubt" if the primary witnesses have either proven themselves unreliable or lying.
That doesn't even mean he's not guilty. But damn it's going to be hard for a jury to convict given disproved witnesses and forensics which at best indicate a struggle, not an execution.
Comment