Two separate issues. I am merely attempting to deduce what the prosecutor is up to with a third bug guy. Without getting redundant you can read my several post to follow what I believe will happen.
As to what I want to hear ? Ok, I want to hear a scientifcally sound reason why the original bug guys are wrong and the new bug guy is right. If Goff just attempts to pick apart the other guys work with losts of maybes and could be's I would think the whole excersise is a waste of time.
I must say though that most people who have challenged what my expectations are about what is likely to happen in court seem to me that they would not be able to accept any information that contradicts the original bug guys even if its sound and logical.
Maybe for some who argued with you it is true.
You also seem to not want to accept other's conclusions that if 2 experts say POSITIVE, and 1 says NEGATIVE, that the positives win. I.E. Majority Rules. You seem to be trying to get others to accept that the exception to an agreement wins. Maybe that is why they don't want to accept it.
I still would like to remark on your willingness to at least defend your remarks using logic and being honest about what are opinion. It is very hard to keep from being upset when it seems like one against many.
I read your posts, all of them. I read EVERYONES POSTS EVERY DAY on these threads. I understand what you think will or may happen if GOFF testifies. AS JJ said, we will have to see.
Also, though many have tried, I don't think we can predict what the jury will DO, any more than you can predict that the HAIR,PRINT,DNA spots in the MH are POSITIVE proof of anything except that Danielle was in the MH at SOMETIME.
Ok, I want to hear a scientifcally sound reason why the original bug guys are wrong and the new bug guy is right.
If GOFF testifies, I think everyone on this thread EXPECTS THE SAME INFO.