Can you provide a link for the DNA on the taillight being touch DNA please.
Defence produced not a scintilla of evidence of anyone either obtaining or planting evidence.
Touch/transfer DNA, whichever, but it was NOT blood or tissue.
Where does it state not blood or tissue please.
BBM.
I am on the NG side, but I wanted to thank you for putting your perspective in such a succinct and thorough post. So often I have seen posts from people in the G camp that make it difficult to take seriously because their posts come across as simply obstinate and emotion-based. While I don't agree with your perspective, it is refreshing to see a post that gives me a solid basis for seeing your point of view and makes me understand how some on the jury might see things as well. Thank you!
Respectfully, you’re flipping the burden of proof here. The defense has ZERO obligation to “prove” anything, the CW has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the standard, whether you like the defense theories or not. If a defendant is legally presumed innocent, then casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events is EXACTLY what a defense is supposed to do. You don’t have to like it, but if they raise reasonable doubt, they’re doing their job.
They did time adjustments on the text ,the truck . whereever they could
I'm really confused as I thought the 3 point turn was not on Fairview but on Cedarcrest prior to arrival at 34 Fairview and ONLY used to track time and event. Am I wrong?
If it were blood/tissue, the CW would have shouted it from the rooftops.
Yes, it’s just a coincidence, because a string of events DNE proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You’re listing a series of correlations, then making a causal leap that the CW itself hasn’t definitively bridged with direct evidence. Coincidence DNE conviction, and inference stacking is not a substitute for proof. Let’s be 100% honest, if their timeline were airtight, the CW wouldn’t have dropped the consciousness of guilt instruction. That speaks volumes IMO.
Sorry that's not correct. It's the party alleging the crime that must prove it, or at least try to do so. That's why there is a defence part of the trial, otherwise the case would go to the jury after the commonwealth rests.
Again, I don't agree. They introduced potential avenues of doubt on cross and direct about how some or all of the tail light pieces got there. And the jury is free to infer from testimony on cross where questions arise. It was the defense who introduced the proctor pieces,( how come Brennan avoided it?), it was the defense who had a witness testify to no diffusers yet the tail light is still lit at 5.07am? Doubt, doubt and more doubt. It's all about introducing doubt into a million different parts of the CW's case. And don't forget Dever. More doubt if the jury infer it.
I linked above the testimony from the crime lab scientist saying she wanted to collect all biological material that might be on the light housing. She didn't do a test for presumptive blood on any part of the car except the undercarriage.
