The entire case seems to have hinged on the "confession" and people sadly do confess to things they did not do.
Not sure if it is the case here but he did confess to at least two crimes that he did not commit. Which would lead to reasonable doubt on my part.
Now this is the only article I have read, there undoubtedly a lot of stuff not included and the writers have a bias.
So I could be wrong.
It is my I understanding that he made several confessions under differing circumstances.
So , yes, I think the direct evidence was weak. But I don’t know how the jury can just write off these confessions.
“””Read the article and honestly not enough evidence to have made me vote guilty and certainly not the death penalty.”””
I have watched the entire proceedings of some high profile cases and when I read the media reports of the trial there seems to be a bias in favor of the defendant.