I think you guys are both right but you're talking past each other. I don't think any of the three of us really know enough about the justice system to be sure about what is undeniable or not.
I will say that DNA evidence is not totally reliable, the perp may have an innocent excuse for their DNA being at the scene, for instance it might have been a place they regularly visited.
And eyewitness ID is pretty fallible, but it becomes more reliable when the witness was already acquainted with the suspect before the crime.
The thing that disturbs me most about jury trials is the way the prosecutors emphasize how heinous the crime was. If I was king I would instruct judges to not allow that kind of rhetoric until after the suspect is convicted. I think focusing on how terrible the crime was makes the jury more likely to convict, "I still have reasonable doubt, but he probably did it, and I can't just let him go when it was such a terrible crime!" Murder trials should only ever focus on "did he do it" and only after the 12 men on the jury agree that "he did it" should we go to "what degree of murder was it and what should the sentence be".

---