Your approach isn't evidence driven. I've gone through all of the pertinent evidence over six months ago. All of the full original footage, the crime report, the transcripts from the body cameras and the full autopsy fully exonerate Chauvin.

That's where you should start, not with going along with everything the prosecution says and treating it like a sport where for example if the referee misses something you have to go along with it. You're receiving everything through the prosecution and that necessarily corrupts the evidence and the facts in a case like this.

People are talking about the crowd. I was telling people that months ago. You failed to start with the evidence and nothing but the evidence. Perhaps you missed it but all the footage, PDFs of the evidence that either party has, etc was posted here ages and ages ago in its raw unadulterated form. The new evidence presented in court goes beyond the requirement of confirming reasonable doubt.

If you want to predict how the jury could be fooled by the prosecution well that's another thing but making arguments like "Believe all experts." when it comes to establishing the actual truth puts you in the same boat as the gullible fool that will believe everything the media says or in this case the prosecution.

Your approach isn't evidence driven. I've gone through all of the pertinent evidence over six months ago. All of the full original footage, the crime report, the transcripts from the body cameras and the full autopsy fully exonerate Chauvin.

That's where you should start, not with going along with everything the prosecution says and treating it like a sport where for example if the referee misses something you have to go along with it. You're receiving everything through the prosecution and that necessarily corrupts the evidence and the facts in a case like this.

People are talking about the crowd. I was telling people that months ago. You failed to start with the evidence and nothing but the evidence. Perhaps you missed it but all the footage, PDFs of the evidence that either party has, etc was posted here ages and ages ago in its raw unadulterated form. The only new evidence presented in the court further exonerates Chauvin, to the point of confirming reasonable doubt.

If you want to predict how the jury could be fooled by the prosecution well that's another thing but making arguments like "Believe all experts." when it comes to establishing the actual truth puts you in the same boat as the gullible fool that will believe everything the media says or in this case the prosecution.

Your approach isn't evidence driven. I've gone through all of the pertinent evidence over six months ago. All of the full original footage, the crime report, the transcripts from the body cameras and the full autopsy fully exonerate Chauvin.

That's where you should start, not with going along with everything the prosecution says and treating it like a sport where for example if the referee misses something you have to go along with it. You're receiving everything through the prosecution and that necessarily corrupts the evidence and the facts in a case like this.

People are talking about the crowd. I was telling people that months ago. You failed to start with the evidence and nothing but the evidence. Perhaps you missed it but all the footage, PDFs of the evidence that either party has, etc was posted here ages and ages ago in its raw unadulterated form.

If you want to predict how the jury could be fooled by the prosecution well that's another thing but making arguments like "Believe all experts." when it comes to establishing the actual truth puts you in the same boat as the gullible fool that will believe everything the media says or in this case the prosecution.

Your approach isn't evidence driven. I've gone through all of the pertinent evidence over six months ago. All of the full original footage, the crime report, the transcripts from the body cameras and the full autopsy fully exonerate Chauvin.

That's where you should start, not with going along with everything the prosecution says and treating it like a sport where for example if the referee misses something you have to go along with it. You're receiving everything through the prosecution and that necessarily corrupts the evidence and the facts in a case like this.

People are talking about the crowd. I was telling people that months ago. You failed to start with the evidence and nothing but the evidence.

If you want to predict how the jury could be fooled by the prosecution well that's another thing but making arguments like "Believe all experts." when it comes to establishing the actual truth puts you in the same boat as the gullible fool that will believe everything the media says or in this case the prosecution.

Your approach isn't evidence driven. I've gone through all of the pertinent evidence over six months ago. All of the full original footage, the crime report, the transcripts from the body cameras and the full autopsy fully exonerate Chauvin.

That's where you should start, not with going along with everything the prosecution says and treating it like a sport where for example if the referee misses something you have to go along with it.

If you want to predict how the jury could be fooled by the prosecution well that's another thing but making arguments like "Believe all experts." when it comes to establishing the actual truth puts you in the same boat as the gullible fool that will believe everything the media says or in this case the prosecution.