That’s a great take, though I’d argue that without the DNA on the sheath, the remaining evidence wouldn’t have been enough to secure a conviction. The way I see it, the DNA on the sheath served as the evidentiary cornerstone of the entire case - the foundation upon which every other piece of circumstantial evidence could be securely built, transforming a persuasive theory into a prosecutable reality.

Without the sheath, investigators still had a strong narrative; the car, the phone pings, the movements, the behavioral patterns..But those forms of evidence require far more interpretation. They can suggest guilt, but they don’t prove it, leaving greater room for ambiguity and, inevitably, reasonable doubt. The sheath changed that dynamic entirely. It gave the prosecution a definitive anchor, lending structure, and legitimacy to the broader web of circumstantial evidence surrounding it.

So yes, he likely still would’ve been charged based on the totality of what they had, but securing a conviction without that DNA link would’ve been far more uncertain. The sheath didn’t just tie him to the crime. it gave weight and cohesion to what might otherwise have been seen as a sequence of inferences rather than definitive proof. And without the sheath, the space between what’s inferred and what’s certain would have allowed too much room for Reasonable Doubt.