By simply questioning the vague nature of an oft repeated line about future trials? The OP posted nonsense from a legal perspective about evidence being admitted and useful going forward? Lol what? Evidence is evidence. It’s use in this trial means nothing. It could still be inadmissible in another case. Likewise, evidence deemed inadmissible for this case might be admissible in another. Evidence is evidence. It exists or it doesn’t.

Where did I say I’m concerned? Concerned about what? On the contrary, I’m only suggesting that the levels of hopium that this case inspired, and the amount of spin that will be used to interpret the acquittal, is all bullshit and unfounded.

That’s not how any of this works. Admissible evidence is admissible evidence, and privileged evidence is privileged evidence. In each case, the evidence existed as such (either admissible or privileged) before the trial and will continue to be so in the future. Of course, admissibility is dependent on the fact in the case. Regardless, your comment makes no sense from a legal perspective.

The nature and strength of the charges were both materially misrepresented by a lot of grifters. I think a lot of people got their hopes up without any real reason.

More and more evidence is coming in? Of what exactly? And I’m not sure the veracity of this “evidence” is meaningful (see, e.g., this verdict).

I don’t know man. I’m a practicing attorney and just don’t agree. Believe what you want if it makes your existence easier.

And when will these “additional trials” take place? I’ve heard promises of trials for years at this point.