The terrace. The most logical point of entry for a thief would have been to climb up onto the terrace and then while standing on the terrace enter though the glass door. No climbing and mostly concealed from street. He would have had to walk right past it and then go do a much harder climb while exposed to the street and more importantly exposed to the parking lot that has security cameras.

There clearly must have been some confusion. The CCTV images prove they arrived after the call. I don't know why you want to hang on to the notion that none of this happened when it's obvious it did.

(My bolded)

Not sure if this was answered - but this isn't the correct way to look at things. The presumption of innocence is for the whole case - not on each individual piece of evidence.

For example: if you're accusing a person of doing a hit and run and the pieces of evidence are:
* "The license plate started with AB"
* "The car was red"
* "It was a Honda"
* "The driver was white"
* "The driver was male"
* "There was a scratch on one side of the car"
* "the accused was seen in the area of the hit and run

Each of those pieces of evidence individually aren't enough to convict someone on. If you were to use the reasonable doubt/presumption of innocence on each one you'd throw them out and be left with no reason to convict. Instead though, you look at all of them together and say - there's no longer reasonable doubt that the accused person who matches each piece is guilty.

When I started skimming this thread I was very much the same way. But the two things that convinced me that 239 was full of crap were:

1) Thinking that his independent research of how human digestion works was enough to discredit the testimony of 8 or 9 doctors from both the prosecution and the defense.

2) The way he handled the alcohol found in Meredith by first describing it as unbelievably high and then when that was proved wrong saying it had to be from either the party the night before (which would have given her a BAC causing coma or death at the party) or from a screw up by the medical examiner.

Those are the two issues that I actually started looking into and it shows such a bias and failure of logic on his part that I can't trust any of his statements.

Looking at the pics yim posted their are shutter doors on the inside and the outside of the window. If the inner doors were closed when the rock was thrown glass would have gotten on the sill inbetween. Were these inner doors closed? When people reference the "shutters were closed" what are they talking about?

Cro

[QUOTE=jjshabado;29427982]When I started skimming this thread I was very much the same way. But the two things that convinced me that 239 was full of crap were:
You clearly don't understand what they said if you think I need to discredit them. Again you are simply lazy here and refuse to figure this out for yourself so you draw the conclusion I'm wrong based on nothing really.

I specifically retracted the notion that the initial test was unbelievably high. It was the subsequent test that was high and I corrected myself, documented it, and was completely transparent. The reality is no one has produced any evidence to show she drank at home and no one is really arguing that so further research needs to be done to see what to make of it.

Further after deciding google is not good enough to reference medical information you then go on to google medical information and decide she'd have to have been in a coma to get that reading from the night before. You sir are a hypocrit. The reality is she had apparently one what equals one drink in her system. So it's impossible that was from the night before? More research needs to be done, period.

Yet you give Henry and Poker Reference a complete pass even though I've revealed them to be completely disingenuous on multiple points in this debate. Your position is laughable. I corrected myself dude.

Also I don't expect people to trust everything I say, I expect they will research it for themselves. That you won't just shows how lazy your arguments are.

The window work like this. There are wood shutters that close and open outward. Inside those there are windows but unlike the windows we are accustomed to in North America that slide these are more like french doors and open inward.

I am familiar with how the windows work. If you look at the pictures you will see their are doors on the inside of the window. If these were closed when the rock was thrown glass would land on the sill between. Did you notice these inner doors? Do you know if they were open or closed?

Cro

The doors on the inside are the window.

If you believe the break-in is real or or fake you always start with both the shutters and the windows open.

If it is real a burglar would climb up and open the green shutters then return to the ground and throw the rock to break the glass. Then they would climb up and reach through the broken glass to that latch about 60% up the window and open the window inward.

If it is fake they through the rock with both closed and then opened both of them after the glass was broken. There is damage to the inside of the shutter that makes it look like the rock was thrown from the inside.

Also in that picture it makes the window look ground level but it actually isn't. The window is 3.5 meters from the ground.

Henry how do you explain the embedded glass on this part of the inner shutter. They had it open and threw the rock through the window and it hit this part?

You can see it in the lower left of this pic.



Seems to me it had to have been thrown from the outside while the green shutter was open or the windows was open to the room but still had the shutter closed behind it. The problem is the glass wouldn't end up on the sill it'd be on the floor wouldn't it?

What am I missing?

What are you arguing about here? I was just stating your position. You believe that all of the doctors that testified a likely ToD of later in the night (10:30-11pm) were wrong. Is that not your position?

This is just another example of your poor logic. You seem to believe all "medical information" is equal. How cancer works, how dna works, how digestion works, how hair grows, it's all the same to you. Kind of ridiculous, right?

Anyway, I didn't intend to get dragged back into a debate with you, so whatever. I was just pointing out to yimyammer the major points that made me trust Henry a lot more than you.

Come back when you actually have read all that was written on the issue and I'll explain my position to you. We don't have all of the testimony of the doctors. We have snippets and we have some of their conclusions and we have Massei's conclusions.

Until you are able to state what every doctor said objectively there isn't really any point to discuss it in a general sense, wouldn't you agree?

So again you are the arbiter of what's ok to research on the internet and what isn't ok to research. Nevermind that a lot of what I learned about this issue didn't come from internet research as much as it came from reading what people in the field have said when asked and also have spoken directly about it.

What is ridiculous is not doing the research on this particular topic yourself and then stating what you state above as if you have. You simply don't know how equal this medical information is because you've never looked into it. If you spent as much time researching the case as you do making these petty arguments it's possible we could have a discussion.

I still would like to understand why you give Henry and Poker Reference a complete pass when pretty much anyone reading this thread sees how disingenuous their arguments are and that at times they've completely misstated the record. This fascinates me on a purely entertainment level.