That's pretty much the definition of unreasonable doubt. Its like saying you can't reconstruct the breakfast that Jeffrey Dahmer had the morning before he drugged Errol Lindsey and drilled a hole in his skull, therefore you must acquit.
Bullets shatter on impact and can't be reconstructed in about half of all forensic analysis, the absence of evidence isn't evidence nor is it remotely surprising.
There's a very obvious political animus driving conspiratorial nonsense and trying to taint a jury, which the media is all too happy to purposefully feed
Correct, inconclusive or absense of evidence isn't evidence. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the pros (attorney) to build this argument. However unlikely it is, the onus is on the pros to build the case which links the bullet to the rifle.
Attorney Christopher Ballard
Quote
Generally when a bullet fragment analysis comes back as inconclusive, that means the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to say one way or the other. There's just not enough there to determine whether the bullet was fired by a particular firearm. We have ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder and we will present some of that evidence at the upcoming preliminary hearing -- and then we will present all of that evidence at the trial.