This should be a great show Ian. I listened to the recent juror from the Karen Read 2.0 trial and I was pleased that he said the taillight was red so he concluded that there was no collision. Idk but I suspect that because he is on the jury he lives there and does not want to make the statement that he believes there was evidence planting.

I would like to know from the dream team why they did not hammer "If The Taillight Was Red You Must Acquit".

Dr. Wolfe’s "low-cost novel optofluidic smart glass technology" thesis which was peer reviewed and published makes him an expert in how light is transmitted through the taillight diffuser. Much more could have been done to beat the drum on this issue with the expertise of Dr. Wolfe. We know the taillight was intact and illuminated red at John's house and also intact at Karen Read's parents house via photographic and video evidence. The taillight pieces were obviously planted at 34 Fairview. There was no collision, no collision, No Collision!!!

Dr. Wolfe resonated with me particularly because back in NYC during the 80s I was running around in some of those great skyline buildings that tragically are no longer there with lasers, light meters and microscopes supervising fiber-optic network connections on trading floors.

Ian, Please consider asking Bob Alessi and David Yannetti why they did not elaborate more clearly to the jury the importance of Dr. Wolfe's diffuser impact findings, his unique expert knowledge in how light is transmitted through plastic and how it would be impossible for Karen Reads taillight to have been red as presented in photos and video evidence.

BTW: I was surprised that my subscription to your locals had not automatically renewed like all of my other locals accounts.
-Mr EntryReqrd