All the reports along these lines seem to stem from what this prosecutor has said. It would be more credible if other officials or trial participants weighed in

All the reports along these lines seem to stem from what this prosecutor has said. It would be more credible if other officials or trial participants weighed in. The omitted evidence he raised seem to me to fall under 2 categories: 1. Evidence that was very ambiguous (eg. the accused calling the victim's cellphone... suspicious until you remember he was doing business with her) 2. Physical evidence closely related to physical evidence that was included. My problem here is that if you think some of the physical evidence was tampered with or planted, then there's no reason to believe the other evidence is authentic. And if you don't believe it was planted, then you don't need any other evidence.