Well, let's see. You're in possession of the murder weapon. You can't explain where you were, exactly, between 10 o'clock and midnight on the evening of February 6 of this year. You have the gun, now, and can't prove that you did not have it then. That's at least probable cause. Of course, it's all circumstantial evidence, but then, circumstantial evidence is admissible evidence, subject to a special jury instruction that says that circumstantial evidence has to be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with other reasonable and plausible theories that explain the circumstances. So, yes, I am suggesting that.
I can't point to a specific instance of it's ever having happened exactly that way, but let me ask you this: have you ever seen one of those documentaries about people having been wrongfully accused of murder, sent to prison for life, and then exonerated because after twenty years or so someone had enough perserverance to prove that they could not possibly have been guilty of the crime? Do you imagine that this could not happen to you? Do you live in the Magic Kingdom?
(Please excuse the sarcasm, it was not intended personally, but it is intended to help the people who read this stuff and never post by shocking them into sensibility.)