>>>>so no matter what we thought we heard or interpreted from what we heard in the last couple of weeks, Perper has changed his findings more than once:
we changed our views as more and more evidence came in. And there were a number of changes which were significant >>>
In other words, they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground and they are relying on a computer to tell them how someone died. Yeah, that'll hold up in court you bumbling idiots. Sheesh. She either died from Blank or she died from something else. A computer DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT SHE DIED FROM.
Almost seems like, IMO, someone should hire and independent autopsy done. (not by the guy who did Daniel's either)
I'm in catch up mode, so sorry if someone else has already responded. Dr. Perper and his associates have had to put together a puzzle piece, and as he stated, the further into their examinations of organs, blood, fluids, tissues they went, the direction of their thinking changed. Normal for any complex issue, and normal for autopsies that aren't so cut and dried. When he arrived at the cause of death, that finding didn't change. It's the manner of death that has been a bit more complicated and it looks to me he's been doing a thorough job.
Maybe what was ON the computer changed it... like with Scott Peterson, when he was researching tides in the bay he dumped Lacy's body in. Many times criminals research how-to and these days those traces don't disappear. Could be HKS was counting on everyone assuming accidental death and never having this computer looked at.