You'd have already known this was a likely outcome.

But you didn't.

Because you weren't *really* trying to hear an unbiased, critical take on the case.

You were good with the version of the case that pretended to be "fair" and "balanced"- where have we heard that before, by the way? asking for Adnan- because it fed into a conclusion you were already comfortable with.

I'm not even mad at you for it.

People are overwhelmingly prejudicial.
Accused? Guilty.
Arrested? Definitely guilty.
Convicted? ABSOLUTELY, 100% GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT

This DNA exoneration can suck a thousand disease ridden dicks, because there was never any credible evidence that he did it to begin with.

I'm glad it clears him, but I think it's telling that you ignored what I said earlier:

It doesn't matter if they have another suspect.

What matters, is whether or not that they have evidence that the person they're accusing and trying to prosecute, did.

It's not that person's problem that the state can't find another suspect.
It's not that person's problem that the family needs closure.
It's not that person's problem that the cops, the family, the state, need *someone* to go down.

NONE of that does, or should, matter one bit.

Because the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the person they're prosecuting did it.
That burden is not on the defendant to prove someone else did.

Any other version of this is corrupt, full stop.

... as we've just witnessed.