That's the problem. Most of this was all public information years ago and the news articles only describe what he knew vaguely, so it's hard to tell how MUCH detail he provided. But the basics of what they're saying were known.
But besides, this guy was known to have obsessed over it and was planning to "write a book". If so, how many people close to the case has he talked to? He could have culled loads of information not published before. This all seems really weak. They need DNA evidence. If there are details he is aware of then the only ones that we can be sure of as material to his guilt or innocence are those details relating directly to the crime scene itself.
For now I'd say the DA has been had.
IMO It was mostly leaked information (therefore unreliable) and conjecture. Much of it was put out by a biased Boulder individuals to appear that they knew what they were doing.....Otherwise known as "saving their B__ts"