The Roseboro Crime Scene

In reviewing numerous news videos of the scene of Jan Roseboro's brutal killing, I began to wonder about the comments and reports that there was "no blood" found at the scene.
If true, that surely will be one of the strongest arguments offered by the defense. But to subscribe to that line of defense, you have to use an alternate "wrap" to your thought process.
They may claim that if Michael Roseboro snapped, and brutally attacked his wife, there would be blood evidence gleaned from his clothing, his body and his surroundings.
Conversely, the lack of blood evidence makes a strong case against Michael Roseboro.

I have been completely unsuccessful in my attempts to find any documentation of random, sudden killers hanging around their crime scene to clean up the mess. Those that attack like a thief in the night usually exit the same way, and in a hurry.
I do think, however, that there was some evidence found on the grounds that we are just unaware of. While viewing one of the videos, I noticed a yellow stack marker placed on the concrete by the Roseboro pool.
That particular marker was labelled with the number "4".
We can only surmise that there are other markers labelled "1", "2" and "3".
It only stands to reason that there has to be some evidence against Michael Roseboro other than a gut feeling, knowing that he was home at the time of the attack.
Even discovering his ongoing affair with Angela Funk isn't enough to bring charges.
No DA worth his salt, or a desire to maintain his gainful employment in the county would rush headlong into charging a suspect without some level of evidence that they feel sure will obtain a conviction.
Many have been very uncomfortable with DA Steadman's comments that even with charges successfully leveled against Roseboro, he claimed that there was still much work to be done.
Most of us agree that the work to obtain a conviction, as far as gathering evidence, should have been, for the most part, done before the charges were levelled.
Steadman gave many the impression that he obtained the charges and detention of Roseboro on the lowest common denominator of evidence that convinced Judge Hamill but then had to bulk it up with substance after the fact.
It very well may be that they do have more evidence than the public is aware of. They can't
play their case out in the public view in totality at the hearing to bind over.
That is just common sense.
The only requirement for acquittal is one juror having reasonable doubt. And that is entirely possible in this case, given what we all know at this point. Perhaps the evidentiary submissions at trial will reduce that doubt completely.
In discovery, I'm sure the defense has turned over every stone to formulate many different possibilities for who killed Jan Roseboro, how they did it and why.
They are only required to create dust and smoke.
Michael Roseboro will be tried by a jury of his peers. I don't know if that brings a level of comfort to him or scares him to death.
All one has to do is sit in the midst of a potential jury pool in any courthouse and listen. What you will hear from those seated around you should scare the hell out of you. Some just want the proceedings over with so they can get back to work. Some will openly admit to already believing the guilt or innocence of the accused, based on something as simple as the defendant entering the courtroom for the voir dire.
Michael Roseboro has already been convicted by many in the court of public opinion. Some are enjoying the horrific situation as if it were a circus or a party to attend.
Others are still so conflicted.
Most are waiting to see the evidence presented.
I do wonder about one thing though......
The DA's office is judged on successful convictions of those it charges with a crime.
In some cases, those charges and the ensuing trial are following a path that they believe is the best chance of winning. Does that always mean that the person charged is truly the one who commited the crime? Or just the one they feel they can get convicted?
There are people walking the streets today simply because the weight of evidence against them is insufficient to garner a conviction. It doesn't mean they are innocent of the crime.
If presented with several scenarios for the death of Jan Roseboro, was her husband charged because the DA believes it to be the truth and has evidence to support that belief?
Or was he charged because of a LACK of evidence in the other scenarios?
Is it easier to charge and work for a conviction against him rather than deal with the lack of evidence against some person yet unknown who could have attacked and killed Jan Roseboro as part of a drug deal gone bad? A payback crime? An impatient and sociopathic girlfriend of Michael Roseboro who saw her plan being thwarted by Jan?
This is far from a cut-and-dried case.
I sincerely hope that as the trial begins and progresses, the evidence will be presented to either convince a jury of guilt or innocence.
For the families involved, there can be no peace or healing until they can find a scenario that they can believe, as horrible as it may be. But being able to know, even the evil, gives them a point from which they can begin to breath again.