[contessa machiaveli]

i can't figure out how intelligent people on this thread are able to ignore the overwhelming evidence. seems a david westerfield cult is in the works.

[Steve0113]

i can't figure out how intelligent people on this thread are able to ignore the overwhelming evidence.

Simple -- it's not overwhelming. Go back and read the previous threads. Then you'll be able to make an informed comment.

seems a david westerfield cult is in the works.

You really don't know what you're talking about. The prosecution's case is a bad joke.

[EllaMinnow]

Don't you just love it?

They're always telling people to read the threads, as if their ramblings are evidence.

You just have to laugh at them.

[UCANSEE2]

What overwhelming evidence do you mean?

All of the evidence and testimony has been discussed and it's meaning and probability for accuracy determined.

Lawyers are conducting CLOSING ARGUMENTS, in which no cross examination is allowed. THis means they are giving totally one-sided arguments. Are you listening to closing arguments? Have you listened to both sides?

Do you think DW is guilty?

Do you think the jury will find him guilty?

Did the cadaver dogs hit on the Motorhome?

Were the two small spots (one in the MH on the carpet, one on DW's jacket) tested and proved to be BLOOD?

What were the results of the DNA test on those spots? What kind of test was done on the hair found in the MH? What does that test prove?

[Jaded]

Thanks, have a nice day.

[VRWC_minion]

i can't figure out how intelligent people on this thread are able to ignore the overwhelming evidence

I agree that the evidence is to me overwhelming but I disagree with your inference that those who conclude differently are unintelligent people.

I believe the outcome on deciding differently is that those who disagree with you and I is they have taken each piece of physical evidence separately and have found a possible innocent explanation. If you do this one at a time then you are left with no evidence.

You and I are probably looking at the existance of the combined total of physical evidence and saying "I cannot come up with a reasonable explanation that is innocent". We end up deciding between what I call the "Big Bad Wolf" vs "Goldilocks" to explain the sum total of the evidence.

Those who disagree with us will take you to task for each and every single item of evidence and individually find a contrary explanation for each piece.

That is why the rope analogy and the guy cheating at 21 examples done by Dusek were important. In his game of 21, the card player won every hand and the chances of him doing that without cheating is nill. But taken one hand at a time its possible that each he could win each individual hand. But common sense tells you that you have to be cheating if you win dozens of hands.