Wow. No one understands how to judge probability. The prosecution brings up the lack of fingerprints at the crime scene as evidence of guilt. One can only imagine if there were fingerprints, they'd also contribute to guilt.

Later on, the prosecution notes the lack of violence while in jail as evidence for guilt because "he knows we've listed ... that he will be violent. He's not stupid." So his violence or lack thereof while imprisoned both count towards his guilt. That's just wrong.

On the other side, his story doesn't seem to hold up to much. Not that this is good enough to deal death to him, but one can see where the prosecutor is coming from. The guy admitted to covering up the murder, and there doesn't appear to be any plausible excuse.

Thanks for the link. There's some VERY suspect behavior by this guy. Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt? I don't know, but lying that the boss was running an errand to another employee the morning after he was murdered certainly seems to align closer to the "hitman's" side of the story. Now couple that with another employee being told by the boss that he was going to run the hotel if this guy got fired for embezzlement, and you have a motive, the guy lying about his boss's whereabouts after the murder, and the hitman stating that they split $4000 taken from the bosses car, and they both had well over $1000 in cash their possession when they were arrested. Honestly, it sounds like the only evidence that this guy is innocent is that another convict said that the hitman bragged about "setting the guy up". That is one heck of a setup if true.

Thanks for that! The narrative recounting of facts at the start is indeed very useful.