Rhoneman you spelled "fried" wrong.
AD I never said I know everything, that's your quote.
I have an advantage over you in that I am not biased by having known the guilty party. I come into this thread objective, and I clearly see a man who has murdered his wife, he has motive, he had opportunity, and the odds of everything that has been presented in this case happening in any other scenario other than the murder for which he has been tried and convicted are about as good as an asteroid striking this planet.
You and Sadie can continue to refute the overwhelming evidence and debate the overwhelming majority of posters on this thread who are pointing the finger of blame, in a futile attempt to convince them to see it your way, but David will continue to sit in his jail cell and there's very little chance he will ever see the light of day.
You may not have come in biased, but you've certainly formed an unshakable opinion based upon a subset of the total data, unless someone believes we have viewed 100% of the available evidence? I don't know anyone involved, I just believe that things happen and I am willing to be persuaded. So far, I would say that there is quite a lot of conjecture that leads to the belief that David killed his wife. That's not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are also showing a bit of a vindictive streak that I find disconcerting in a case that isn't all that clear cut. There was a strong enough case to convict, but there is certainly the possibility of doubt. Some consider it reasonable doubt while others feel it would be a stretch to believe that anything other than a murder occurred. I still believe that there are possible, though unlikely, explanations for Shelley's death that don't involve murder.
Even though I can live with a guilty verdict standing against this man, I have a hard time with a 25 year sentence and certainly would find the concept of death penalty application to be outrageous. Your "fried" comment, therefore, is not funny and in very poor taste. Some might call it offensive. Of course, guilty is guilty and it's a tough call if you start letting the judge alter sentencing too much based upon how close the trial was. I'm sure many people would be up in arms if a man convicted of murder was sentenced to ten years.
Here you have a man who may have murdered his wife ten years ago. To the best of anyone's knowledge, he hasn't been on a crime spree since then. While I don't want to see him get off completely free if he did it, he's looking pretty old and beaten down already. Does anyone believe he would be a danger to society if he got out in five or ten years on a lesser charge? The parallels to the Watson case are pretty significant and, in my opinion, the case against Watson was stronger than what we have here.