As far as I know, the lawyers have not confirmed that it is him.

But in any case, that’s beside the point of the “weird ass conspiracy”. To spell it out a bit more clearly, the actual idea is that there is “not enough evidence” to convict - because he should not be convicted. (In a jury trial, you cannot just say “guilty, but should be unpunished”; but you can say “not guilty, due to insufficient evidence”.)