Last week, we walked through the state's case against Robert Aetrops.

Prosecutors revealed that after more than 30 years, new forensic testing finally solved

the cold case.

They pointed to missing phone calls that left Robert's alibi unconfirmed, soil on Deborah's

car that appeared to match soil from Robert's yard, a professional

connection to the construction site where her body was found, and crucially, DNA on the collar

of her jacket that they said pointed directly to Robert. According to the state, all of it

added up to one conclusion. Robert Aetropes murdered his wife in 1988 and got away with it

for decades. But here's the problem. After a full trial, after thousands of pages of reports,

after hours of testimony, the defense says the case still leaves more questions than answers.

They may have a cause of death, but they can't say where Deborah was killed, who was there,

or how the crime actually unfolded.

And without those answers, the defense asks, can this case really rise to proof beyond a reasonable

doubt?

According to the defense, this case was never built on evidence.

It was built on assumptions.

On filling in blanks with speculation.

On molding uncertainty into a story that sounds convincing until it's examined closely.

If the jurors stop following the narrative and start looking at the evidence itself,

the defense says something else comes into focus.

Another man in Deborah Atrop's life.

Someone who was forensically linked to her through DNA.

...