As I assume you know, I did not say that judges would infer guilt because Adnan is dragging his feet about getting the DNA tested.

You should pay more attention to the things you type:

A judge is much more likely to hear through the grapevine that Adnan's legal team is holding off on testing the material from under Lee's nails and think (as many of us do) "There's no reason to hold off on that unless he's guilty as sin" . . .

You made the bizarro-world claim that the judges would infer innocence due to the very existence of untested material.

Another failure of reading comprehension. :( I pointed out the simple fact that uncertainty itself would possibly make the judges question more seriously the impact of any errors Gutierrez made in the trial.

By the way, I know this is unfair to you because you don't have any familiarity with this - but there is a lot of value to precedent in determining whether Gutierrez was deficient. There is relatively little value in precedent for determining if the error was prejudicial, because that determination is extremely particular to the facts of the case and the role the excluded evidence would play. Consequently, that partis largely up to the judges - which brings us back to why them having some uncertainty about the ultimate outcome is useful.

And, in response to your completely outlandish claim, I simply said that if one wants to posit the existence of appellate judges who make their rulings based on gossip they heard about the case rather than based on precedent and admitted evidence, then these hypothetical appellate judges would certainly be motivated more by the inferred guilt of not wanting to test evidence than the 'inferred innocence' of some material existing that's untested. But you knew that. My contention has been from the start that the appellate judges will rule based on precedent and the admitted evidence. You are the one who tried to make some convoluted argument that appellate judges rule based on gossip and irrational fear.

I think I explained why all this is wrong above.