I have similar thoughts on it all. I don't think the prosecution have shown enough to convince me, not beyond reasonable doubt. He has told lies upon lies, but this is a man that's spent his whole life in murky dealings and is constantly lying to cover up his actions, I think I said on the other thread it's like his default position. An example of that is his call logs from the night being deleted (which he says he didn't do), we now know his calls from the evening and there's not even anything unusual or incriminating on there, so why did he delete them? I think it's
possible he's so used to trying to wriggle out of situations and absolve himself of blame, that he's lied to distance himself from being anywhere near the scene.
My lead theory would be though that he knows more than he's revealed about who did it, he either knows or suspects who it was and is covering this info up as it would uncover more of his criminal activities that as of yet, isn't known about. The large sums of money being stolen and noone knows where it was all going, could well be debts to some very shady people, I wonder if he was involved in drug trafficking. No way was he spending 50k a week on personal use
. So I do think he knows something more. Not convinced he pulled a trigger. The state's motive they've tried to suggest, I think is weak. People can be a compulsive liar and a thief, but it's a very different type of person to do this sort of crime and I can't see what he would have gained? If he's as selfish as they say, there would have been some benefit for him to do this, there's been nothing to suggest that he was just a violent, aggressive character. I know people have used Chris Watts as an example of someone who didn't seem like the type to do what he did, but he did have a motive, he wanted his family gone so he could skip off with his other woman.
Anyway, them's my thoughts so far!