He doesn't need to provide any explanation for anything. The burden of proof is on the government. Possession of property is not proof of murder. It is circumst

He doesn't need to provide any explanation for anything. The burden of proof is on the government. Possession of property is not proof of murder. It is circumstantial evidence. He might have come across the property, he might have stolen the property, etc.. Do you understand what reasonable doubt is? Did you serve on a jury?