In the years since then, we've attempted to provide information on exonerating evidence that the jury did not hear. Many resolutely reject such a premise, arguing that if any such evidence existed, Mark Geragos would have presented it. This is a pretty ridiculous argument, given that most post-conviction exonerations result from evidence not presented at trial. We're not here to throw stones at Mark Geragos -- 42,000+ pages of discovery turned over piecemeal with no sense of organization was hardly inadvertent.
Others reject our efforts on the argument that we don't have expert witnesses to confirm that our arguments are correct, and therefore they are under no obligation to consider such evidence. However, this argument is very weak simply because the exonerating evidence in this case doesn't require being an expert to understand -- to put it bluntly, it's not rocket science. People of average intelligence and good common sense can read the same professional literature that we've read and come to the same conclusions. And any expert called to testify in the future on Scott's behalf will be trained in the professional literature, or at least very well familiar with it, and may even have written some of it. We know that many think we simply scour the Internet looking for that one obscure source that says what we need it to say to make our arguments. We ask that those who do not believe that the professional information we provide is representative of the body of literature available, to simply give us the name(s) and publication information of the professional literature that disagrees, and we'll take a good look at it and then discuss it.
Others use anecdotal information to dispute the exonerating evidence. Anecdotal information can indeed be useful in making us aware of the things that could possibly happen, such as a very large wave propelling Conner to his final resting place 24 feet from the breakwater and well out of the reach of the debris line. We are eager to discuss any possible explanation for Conner's location, or any of the other exonerating evidence, but we expect that we will be able to find some evidence that the possible explanation actually did occur.
I know there will be a strong response along these lines -- what about all the incriminating evidence, how do you explain all of that? I don't attempt to explain all of that, except to say that if this body of exonerating evidence is credible, then all of the incriminating evidence simply falls by the wayside. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "that's a deal-breaker." What makes a person look guilty does not win against what proves a person is innocent. At least it shouldn't.
There also might be some people that think, Even if this exonerating evidence is credible, that doesn't prove Scott is innocent. So let's discuss your theory of how Scott can still be guilty.
This venue isn't the best for discussions, but I think we can make it work. You post a question about, or an objection to, or an argument against the exonerating evidence. I'll copy your comment into a new article, and that will open the discussion, through my reply and through comments posted. If we keep on subject, we should be able to have a good discussion.