Oh I read them completely, just amazed that you feel/see it that way.
1- maybe you should cruise the Cooper and Young murder trials/cases. Every bit of evidence is circumstancial. It would be interesting to see which 'side' of the case you are on there. What about S.Peterson... wasn't that trial held in the US? Where was the actual/direct evidence against him?
2- What would be the 'agenda' for questioning the verdict of a full trial when over 20 judges have looked at the evidence and found both AK and RS of being involved? What about the jurors with judges on the panel too... were they searching for the TRUTH with the entire body of evidence to look over instead of internet searches? They are perfectly capable of finding the truth IMO.
3- Bathroom mat print shows there was some type of cleanup. The luminal prints show there was a cleanup. Why would RG 'bolt' after only cleaning some of the evidence? He wouldn't have, that's why. Obviously, to unbiased observers, the staging of the burglary and the partial cleanup show that someone wanted the crime to look 'different' than what actually occured. Who would have reason to do so... :waitasec: . You know who AGAIN. All those pesky pieces of circumstancial evidence sure do pile up.
1. might do that. Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence, sure, and there was
more circumstantial evidence against him in that case than there is here. There was more going to his state of mind that occured before the murder as in: hey Amber, my wife passed away and I'm a pathetic widow. You do realize that direct evidence is less likely to be obtained in prosecutions than circumstantial right? If could be watching too many defense attorney pundits on TV - nearly ALL cases are completely circumstantial.
DIRECT EVIDENCE
Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.
Although completely circumstantial, it greatly depends on how those bricks fit in the wall and how complete the wall is when they are done. There was suffidient history of things he said before he killed her, like that his wife had died :0 Here, we have no bricks to put in the wall that paints AK as a sex crazed psycho orgyist. So that wall falls down. Just like Geragos's wall fell down when he asserted the defense that satanists had done it - no bricks, wall down...rejected...not logical Captain Kirk.
2. Easy peasy - there is always an agenda when courts give deference to other officers of the court. It's a basic psychological deference and in some systems it must be given to the trial judge. And people don't like to admit they were wrong. A jury with judges on the jury or panel is like making the foreman a PhD and all the other high school drop outs - herd mentality people. This stuff does happen in our country too, don't get me wrong - a critical mass of thinking can have the effect of the truth even when it isn't.
3. You are mixing the luminol prints and the bath mat print up without defining each and they are different indeed. The luminol prints definitively show there was no clean up because of the clear outline and that they were more likely left by a cleaning substance transfered from the shower area to the floor. If you clean up blood - you smear it around you don't erase it away and leave the unmistakeable print in tact - especially when the clean up immediately follows the crime and the print is not left there for days. I'm going back to look at the bath mat print because there is much there to examine - mostly I've found it to be aggregiously passed off as something it is not...but I'll look more.