I cannot see how you can prosecute a man,on a theory of what may have happened.I for one think the man is innocent and will prevail on appeal.But he has to stay in prison until his appeal is heard,what a damn shame.The prosecution,in this case presented a case on a theory of what may have happened.What happened to a reasonable doubt?Were the jury explained that to come back with a guilty verdic,that they were allowed to use with out a reasonable doubt,to convict?He was convicted on a theory.A theory is not a fact.