Combo of 1, 2 and 3--guilty, but the prosecutors were inept. Well, inept is probably a little strong, but I don't think they came anywhere made the most of the evidence they had. And the defense knew their opponents' weaknesses, played it to a "T"--shazam. Not guilty.
Interestingly, this was before serious advances in forensic technology; here's a question for those on the board. If this case went to trial today, would the presentation and outcome be different? Based on the responses here, I'm guessing people don't believe the evidence played a huge role in the verdict (!), so perhaps nothing would change...