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.
May I suggest you read the window section within the 2001 appeal hearing and form your own opinion (Ground 3, 261 -288). All I am saying, whether the surrounding facts are correct or not, is that the jury was told by the judge ..."how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case".
The fact his campaign group have included the windows in the submission shows they are utterly clueless. Firstly, the judge gave a clear direction to the jury. Secondly, the judge's summing up was the subject of the first appeal. Thirdly, the lawyers had a go at the windows for the 2001 appeal and the appeal court judges simply batted it away based on the judge's direction. Time to move on folks the windows are going nowhere. Supporters can rant and rave over what they consider to be the unfairness of it all (and verbally abuse me on the basis that I've even mentioned it) but I am afraid this is the system and process.
The criteria for a successful appeal is NEW evidence or argument not known about at trial ie something that had the jury heard about may have brought about a different verdict. Whatever is presented about the windows will not meet the criteria as the judge gave a clear direction as above.
