[VRWC_minion]

Dusek used the cheating example at playing cards to describe that evidence is looked at in its entirety and not picked at individually like those here have done which led them to erroneous conclusions. Dusek's example was apparently effective.

I still don't see how I was wrong.

[Yeti]

Dusek used the cheating example at playing cards to describe that evidence is looked at in its entirety and not picked at individually like those here have done which led them to erroneous conclusions.

Oh! So you DO remember....

[UCANSEE2]

Dusek used the cheating example at playing cards to describe that evidence is looked at in its entirety and not picked at individually like those here have done which led them to erroneous conclusions. Dusek's example was apparently effective.

Apparently it was effective. That fact that the judge told the jury to look at each individual piece of evidence, and decide if each piece had merit, then look at the entirety of what was found valid, apparently was MISSED by the JURY and YOU.

DUSEK wanted the JURY to do as you say because only by looking at it as a whole, and ignoring flaws in the pieces, would it hold water. Much like the media's way of judging the case.

I still don't see how I was wrong.

Yeah, I know. It's hard for anyone to be right when the JUDGE and DA and POLICE are allowed to lie and cheat.

The thing that makes me most angry is that we do not really know if DW actually killed Danielle or not. Picking one person, then finding/creating/falsifying evidence to justify having picked that person , instead of finding real evidence and having it lead to the person, has left me with no trust that the real killer has been apprehended. It turned into a show all about MONEY (media,PR TEAM) and POLITICAL GAIN. (DA and MUDD)