to be a victim of a police plot and would prove such through the Nonoxynol theory; and (11) details of the funeral services for the Maclvors. Conversely, the material did contain some inflammatory items including: (1) many of the stories did mention Overton’s past criminal activity as a burglar; (2) a description that Overton “[had] been in trouble since he was a youngster”; (3) a description that Overton was institutionalized for mental health problems in the past; and (4) the DNA results established that there was a one-in-six-billion chance that anyone but Overton committed the crime. Notwithstanding some inflammatory matters, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that the pretrial publicity was largely factual, rather than inflammatory. See Rolling, 695 So.2d at 284 (<HOLDING>). Second, much of this largely factual
holding that notwithstanding that the case generated massive pretrial publicity a motion to change venue was not improperly denied as such pretrial publicity was not presumptively prejudicial because it consisted of straight news stories relating cold hard facts  holding that the district court should have engaged in a more detailed inquiry when pretrial publicity was vast a third of potential jurors had an opinion about the guilt of the defendant and all jurors selected had been exposed to pretrial publicity holding that a change of venue was not warranted due to publicity surrounding an unrelated murder with common features because the defendant failed to establish any specific prejudice against him as a result of the publicity holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing holding that even where there is inflammatory pretrial publicity an adequate coolingoff period between the publication of such material and the trial which in crews was six to eight months together with the trial courts exercise of its discretion to evaluate bias and impartiality during voir dire sufficiently supported the trial courts conclusion that pretrial publicity did not prevent the capital defendant from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury