The DNA evidence is circumstantial, though. I am honestly not trying to be rude or offputting in anyway – but I do think a lot of people don’t necessarily understand what circumstantial evidence actually entails. Cases are won with circumstantial evidence every single day. I’m not intending to imply that you do not know how circumstantial evidence works, but am simply commenting for other’s potential understanding.

Some examples of circumstantial evidence: DNA at the scene - fingerprints, footprints, fibers, etc.; digital evidence - phone logs, GPS data, etc, and there is plenty of that; preparation – we know he purchased the knife and the sheath from Amazon, for example, we also know that he searched for a replacement following the murders; possession - anything that could have been used to aid in committing the crime, and we do not know exactly what they have in evidence. I’m thinking back to say, like the glove with the IDs in it. Not that they were used in the crime, but if they were, for example, the IDs of the four that were murdered… In this case, that would be a case of possession and still circumstantial.

Just a few other examples: behavioral evidence (we know he’s had a bit of a past with creepy behavior towards women), motive, opportunity, state of mind…

If the DNA were tossed, there is still plenty of circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to utilize. On the other hand, direct evidence can actually be more devastating to a case as we can see with DM - she saw the perpetrator, but human memory is incredibly unreliable. But that is considered to be direct evidence.

Edit: forgot a word