Why didn't his defence refer to the unused statements during his trial?
Since when did altering a Facebook page make a him more or less guilty?
I won't go on any more, other than to ask you what the estimated conviction rate is for these types of crimes is, and to query whether or not you think that there must have been some pretty compelling evidence presented at his trial to convince a jury to find him guilty in the absence of forensic evidence.
A right I appeal only applies if there is grounds by which to appeal (new evidence for instance). I believe in innocence until proven guilty, and guilt until a reasonable challenge can be made.