I've told you to refer to Page E of the trial which is contained in the 2001 appeal document at point 286.
The point I was getting at was whether it was during the summing up. If Rivlin was not privy to any information regarding the windows; and that lack of information was down to some form of non-disclosure, then by default Rivlin was hampered from pursuing the windows issue at trial to that issue's fullest extent. Such arguments would have occurred
prior to the summing up.
So for example, Miller told Robert Boutflour that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows. Whether or not that was true or bullshit on the part of Miller, Rivlin would have been able to put Miller on the spot by asking for further clarification of what he meant regarding this remark. Miller then either has to refute the remark or admit to bullshitting Robert Boutflour, which in itself calls in to question Miller's honesty per se. All of this (and any other windows evidence that has come to light) would have played out before the summing up, as you so succinctly put it, while the kitchen sink was being thrown.
