Evidence preferred, but not necessary
In this day and age, in virtually any trial it seems (but especially a technology-related trial or an emotional trial such as murder or any trial involving children), evidence is no longer required. It's preferred to have actual evidence, but it's not necessary. Today's juries will convict regardless of whether or not evidence exists or proof was established. It's groupthink at its finest. If you want an example, just look at the previous comments here. There are a number of people who appear to believe he did it, though I can't possibly understand why.
It's sad that someone's life was senselessly and violently ended prematurely. It's sadder that his family and friends have to carry this with them and try to go on with their own lives. But the saddest, in my opinion, is that our (and by "our", I mean society's) need for "justice" and revenge is so great that things like proof or reasonable doubt are ignored in a pathetic attempt to "solve" everything with the least amount of work possible.