I wish I understood it more Lookout.... 
The documents they saw didn't prove all the information available on the issues they commented upon. They essentially claimed the documents they saw failed to fully provide a record of everything that was alleged at trial. Webster and others subsequently reviewed more documents and other information and ultimately these allegations were dropped. They didn't make their way into the 2002 appeal because by then it was obvious the claims were wrong. Many allegations made were essentially brainstorming to try to get others to do further research or provide some idea of what to research further.
Not being privy to everything in the defense file means that we don't get to see when and why the defense ended up rejecting and abandoning various allegations.
The lack of disclosure about when and why claims were abandoned or disproved is used by the campaign team among others to press claims that have already been rejected. Such claims are useless legally but are used for propaganda purposes to try to garner public support. There is thus a dichotomy.
The fact the 2 CCRC opinions rejecting the latest submissions hasn't been released is similarly taken advantage of. If the CCRC rejections were published it would eliminate the ability to use such arguments. But since such arguments were not publicly smashed propagandists still use them. If the CCRC's reasoning were disclosed then they in order to keep pressing the claims they would have to try to rebut the criticisms. The lawyers couldn't even manage that so clearly they would not be able to.
Webster made some extraordinarily wacky claims to the Court of Appeals including the suggestion the flake of blood was really just a flake of soot that had a little blood on it. He didn't make the claims Stevenson suggested though so that tells you the claims were subsequently refuted.
The evidence before the COA was that the flake was cut up into 5 parts, each part was dissolved, and 4 of the 5 samples produced blood grouping results.
