“They should have been able to nail the bastard using then-current forensic science and good old fashioned police work, that was my point. :^)”
I agree. That level of violence implies it was personal, so someone - family, friends, coworkers - should have known who had that much anger against the victim. Even if not, someone who apparently had so much contact with the victim (or at least with the store) should have been identified and interviewed - and probably his injuries would have been observed. Even without DNA, they had blood types - crude, but it could eliminate many potential perpetrators.
And I’m still surprised that his DNA wasn’t in CODIS for other crimes. Was this just a one-off? Not unheard of but surprising. Was he on drugs at the time? And this gave him such a shock that he never used again, never committed a serious offense again?
When a serious crime is committed, don’t the police canvas the neighborhood? Anyone who lived nearby, or was a frequent customer, might be able to provide useful information to the police, and all of them should have been interviewed.
We really need to know more about the initial investigation before we can draw conclusions.
“We really need to know more about the initial investigation before we can draw conclusions.”
Yes we do.
But I expect we’ll have to wait for the trial to be over to find out anything. If the defense counsel doesn’t plea bargain it down.