I am afraid that this was one of those cases that defence counsel hate. Circumstantial evidence is always harder than direct evidence. You can always hope to discredit the eye witness who says he saw the client shoot the victim. You can explain total confessions away. With circumstantial evidence, all you can do is demolish bits of it; knocking bricks off the building; but it is rare to remove enough of it ; the building is damaged but still stands. And here, belatedly, is the defence trying to remove odd bricks. And, in the end, whatever bricks you remove, you usually have to call he client. That can do for you and commonly does. The jury see him, and they see he is a liar and psychopathic, with a motive, and must have done it