What I do know, however, is that the case was notable because every single piece of evidence was circumstantial. There was no truly hard evidence. Circumstantial evidence can reasonably be used to convict; it really can be quite convincing, and it's stupid to disregard it.
But the man is facing Death Row. He is facing a death sentence. This is circumstantial evidence. I don't care how fucking guilty he is- he should not be facing execution when there is no truly solid evidence that he did what he was accused of. Life in prison- but that can be undone if new information comes to light. I don't think it's right for there to be the possibility of a death sentence when the evidence is purely circumstatial.