> The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home.
My understanding is that they connected the weapon to the murder and thus got the criminal. The problem, from my understanding, is that the "connection" was illegal and as a result they have to remove the evidence (the gun). Without that, they have no case.
That's a misunderstanding then. They found a weapon and are claiming a connection, but you should not believe a connection just because the police claim it.
> The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home.
You can't just pull up a weapon from the suspect home and call it a "murder weapon". They has at least to be some connection especially that everyone and his dog has a weapon in America.
More importantly, and most people don't realize it, but the police normally find enough evidence to get the suspect to admit and take a plea.
So much of the time they don't need to get evidence to convince a jury, they just need to get the suspect to believe they have enough evidence to convince a jury.
This all "works" because in some large percentage of murder cases, everyone knows who did it, because the "tv show unexplained unexpected murder by someone random of someone they don't even know" is rare.
> You can't just pull up a weapon from the suspect home and call it a "murder weapon"
Yes, you can, and without any reference to evidence establishing that it is the murder weapon beyond it being described as “what police say is the murder weapon”, you should absolutely consider the probability that that is exactly what the police are doing.
The way I read it, even if forensic analysis proved that it was the murder weapon, it's inadmissible because the search warrant where it was found shouldn't have been issued in the first place due to Clearview being used to provide the backing for a search warrant.
They couldn’t connect the footage of the murder to anyone, not with AI at the time or now. It is too low quality to ID anyone. They watched live footage 6 days later of the suspect leave his place a block away from the murder location and go to a convenience store. They said he looked like the murderer footage based on “build, hair style, clothing and walking characteristics” which is pretty vague and flimsy. They took images from the convenience store footage and AI face matched it to the suspect, but the AI connection was "illegal" (it isn't illegal to use AI, it just isn't enough for a warrant and they were sloppy and didn't do any more work to get proper justification). The evidence (the gun) was collected illegally and is inadmissible (fruit from a poison tree).
As for whether he did it, and whether the gun is the murder weapon, that is still very much up for debate. They found a gun that they claim is the murder weapon. To actually know that is not easy or simple. My guess is the gun is the same caliber as the one used in the murder and the ammo still in the gun was the same brand/model as the casings or rounds recovered. So given their other evidence leading them to the house, they believe it is the murder weapon. No gunshot residue was found on the gun or clothing (which is not exculpatory, but raises more doubt).
In the end we know that the suspect.
1. Had no physical features drastically different than the murderer (walking with a limp, having an afro, being 5’ 4”, being a woman, etc)
2. Owns a 9mm handgun (standard issue police handguns are 9mm, so its not exactly uncommon)
3. Lives a block away from the murder location.
4. The murderer “stopped” in Tolbert’s apartment complex driveway before the murder.
5. “was seen running toward and away from Tolbert’s apartment immediately after the killing” which I am unsure if that just means they ran down the road and passed by the apartment as he fled.
6. No belongings were found from the victim at Tolbert’s apartment or, as far as I can find, anything else providing any other positive connections.
My understanding is that they connected the weapon to the murder and thus got the criminal. The problem, from my understanding, is that the "connection" was illegal and as a result they have to remove the evidence (the gun). Without that, they have no case.