Can someone please explain to me how, after essentially two trials, a convicted criminal for a prosecutor, proven lies by police, prosecution, forensics testimony (shown on video no less), can there still be those who will still only believe the lies spread by the prosecution propaganda campaign that started 4 years ago. Lies that have either never been proven to be true or have been disproved during this appeal trial? I've gotten so frustrated and angry at another site I just finally had to stop responding because I was getting really snarky in my posts. I just cannot wrap my head around this way of viewing this trial. I'm generally a pro prosecution person! I almost always view what the defense does as smoke and mirrors to find any kind of reasonable doubt, but this case went beyond my reasonable doubt threshold into complete did not do it. Which in all honesty has only happened one other time. The judge said, paraphrasing here, that they didn't do it, not that there was reasonable doubt. The judge said there was no break in staging, it was a break in. I'm totally befuddled and frustrated at the attitude of some!!!!