That’s not the way our justice system is supposed to work. We don’t require proof of innocence. We require (or are supposed to require) proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.
Possessing stolen goods should not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.
He openly admitted to multiple people he killed her and had her property in his possession. Do you think that it was impossible to have burden of proof prior to DNA or something? Who admits to killing somebody while having their property in their possession if they didn't do it? The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt, but adding on the possession of the murder victim's property just pushes it further.
No, some witnesses testified that he allegedly confessed. This is called hearsay. There is an exception to hearsay when it comes to confessions and that's the reason the testimony was admitted during the trial. A hearsay confession is very different than a confession made to the public, the police, the prosecutor, in court or during a deposition. The witnesses received benefits from their testimonies and this again leads to reasonable doubt.
> The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt
How can you be so sure the confessions actually happened?
The girlfriend heard it directly from the accused and testified to that fact. It wasn't hearsay. Despite claims to the contrary, she didn't request any money for the testimony.
Why do people keep ignoring the girlfriend's testimony?
Possessing stolen goods should not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.