Evidence is simply something that is proposed to support a claim or assertion.

Evidence does not "prove" anything.

Evidence and both it's value and indications must be evaluated by the finder of fact.

You first must assume, based on more evidence of the reliability of the evidence, that the evidence is even valid. At a certain point, you are making assumptions based on common knowledge, logic, etc in order to be able look at the issue at hand rather than going a rabbit hole.

If the evidence is shown to be invalid/false, at any point in time following your evaluation, then all conclusions you drew from it, and all the conclusions down the line are invalidated as well until you reassess.

KK stated at the 11/10/05 press conference that they knew about the blood on Saturday, the day the first search warrants were executed, he adamantly asserts this, they knew immediately about the blood. However, the chain of custody and all claims by the State in official court documents that have been made available to us, claim that, as a matter of fact, the blood was discovered at the Wisconsin State Crime Lab the next day, the doors were locked at the Salvage yard, no blood was seen, and nobody entered the Rav4.

The jury evaluated the defenses claim that blood was planted in the Rav4 based on testimony by State witnesses and exhibits entered into evidence. As detailed above, they were operating under the assumption, based on the credibility of the State, that it would have had to be planted while at the crime lab.

Kks admission in the transcript calls into question the credibility of both the DAs office and the State witnesses that testified to when and where and how the blood was both found and whether or not it was planted.

Thus, everything gathered and gleaned from the moment law enforcement stepped onto the Avery property and going forward was presented to and evaluated by the jury using allegedly falsified and manufactured offers of proof proffered by the State.