He never ...

[squirt]

What Does the Evidence Establish - And What Does It Mean Today?

* Can The Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?
I once thought the gospels were merely religious propaganda, hopelessly tainted by overactive imaginations and evangelistic zeal, however, Craig Blomberg, one of the country's foremost authorities on the topic, built a convincing case that they reflect eyewitness testimony and bear the unmistakable earmarks of accuracy, so early are these biographies that they cannot be explained away as legendary invention, in fact, the fundamental beliefs in Jesus' miracles, resurrection and deity go way back to the very dawning of the Christian movement

* Do The Biographies of Jesus Stand Up To Scrutiny?
Blomberg argued persuasively that the gospel writers intended to preserve reliable history, were able to do so, were honest and willing to include difficult-to-explain material and didn't allow bias to unduly color their reporting, the harmony among the gospels on essential facts, coupled with divergence on some details, lends historical credibility to the accounts, what's more, the early church couldn't have taken root and flourished right there in Jerusalem if it had been teaching facts about Jesus that his own contemporaries could have exposed as exaggerated or false, in short, the gospels were able to pass all eight evidential tests

* Were Jesus' Biographies Reliably Preserved For Us?
world-class scholar Bruce Metzger said that compared with other ancient documents, there is an unprecedented number of New Testament manuscripts and that they can be dated extremely close to the original writings, the modern New Testament is 99.5% free of textual discrepanicies, with no major Christian doctrines in doubt, the criteria used by the early church to determine which books should be considered authoratative have ensured that we possess the best records about Jesus

* Is There Credible Evidence For Jesus Outside His Biographies?
"We have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion," said Edwin Yamauchi, sources from outside the bible corroborate that many people believed Jesus performed healings and was the Messiah, that he was crucified and that despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed he was still alive, worshipped him as the Son of God, one expert documented 39 ancient sources that corroborate more than 100 facts concerning Jesus' life, teachings, crucifixion and resurrection, 7 secular sources and several early creeds concern the deity of Jesus, a doctrine "definitely present in the earliest church," according to scholar Gary Habermas

* Does Archaeology Confirm Or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?

archaeologist John McRay said there's no question that archaeological findings have enhanced the New Testament's credibility, no discovery has ever disproved a biblical reference, further, archaeology has established that Luke, who wrote about 1/4 of the New Testament, was an especially careful historian, concluded one expert, "If Luke as so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting [of minor details], on what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in the reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well?" like, for instance, the resurrection of Jesus

*Is The Jesus Of History The Same As The Jesus of Faith?
Gregory Boyd said the much-publicized Jesus Seminar, which doubts Jesus said most of what's attiributed to him, represents "an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking." the Seminar ruled out the possibility of miracles at the outset, it employed questionable criteria, and some participants have touted myth-riddled documents of extremely dubious quality, further, the idea that stories about Jesus emerged from mythology about gods dying and rising fails to withstand scrutiny, said Boyd, "The evidence for Jesus being who the disciples said he was ... is just light years beyond my reasons for thinking that the left-wing scholarship of the Jesus Seminar is correct." in sum, the Jesus of faith is the same as the Jesus of history

*Was Jesus Really Convinced That He Was The Son of God?
by going back to the very earliest traditions, which are unquestionably safe from legendary development, Ben Witherington III was able to show that Jesus had a supreme and transcendent self-understanding, based on the evidence, Witherington said, "Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God, the anointed one of God? The answer is yes. Did he see himself as the Son of Man? The answer is yes. Did he see himself as the final Messiah? Yes, that is the way he viewed himself. Did he believe that anybody less than God could save the world? No, I don't believe he did."

[squirt]

* Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed To Be The Son Of God?
well-known psychologist Gary Collins said Jesus exhibited no inappropriate emotions, was in contact with reality, was brilliant and had amazing insights into human nature, and enjoyed deep and abiding relationships, "I just don't see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illnesses," he concluded, in addition, Jesus backed up his claim to being the Son of God through miraculous eats of healing, astounding demonstrations of power over nature, unrivaled teaching, divine understanding of people, and with his own resurrection, which was the final authentication of his identity

* Did Jesus - And Jesus Alone - Match the Identity Of The Messiah?
hundreds of years before Jesus was born, prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah, or the Anointed One, who would redeem God's people, in effect, dozens of these Old Testament prophecies created a fingerprint that only the true Messiah could fit, this gave Israel a way to rule out imposters and validate the credentials of the authentic Messiah, against astronomical odds - one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion - Jesus, and only Jesus thorughout history, matched this prophetic fingerprint, this confirms Jesus' identity to an incredible degree of certainty

* Was Jesus' Death A Sham And His Resurrection A Hoax?
by analyzing the medical and historical data, Dr Alexander Metherell concluded that Jesus could not have survived the gruesome rigors of crucifixion, much less the gaping wound that pierced his lung and heart, the idea that he somehow swooned on the cross and pretended to be dead lacks any evidential basis, Roman executioners were grimly efficient, knowing that they themselves would face death if any of their victims wree to come down from the cross alive, even if Jesus had somehow lived through the torture, his ghastly condition could never have inspired a worldwide movement based on the premise that he had gloriously triumphed over the grave

*Was Jesus' Body Really Absent From His Tomb?
William Lane Craig presents striking evidence that the enduring symbol of Easter - the vacant tomb of Jesus - was a historical reality, the empty grave is reported or implied in extremely early sources - Mark's gospel and the 1 Corinthians 15 creed - which date so close to the event that they could not possibly have been products of legend, the fact that the gospels report that women discovered the empty tomb bolsters the story's authenticity, the site of Jesus' tomb was known to both Christian and Jew alike, so it could have been checked by skeptics, in fact, nobody, not even the Roman authorities or Jewish leaders, ever claimed that the tomb still contained Jesus' body, instead they were forced to invent the absurd story that the disciples, despite having no motive or opportunity, had stolen the body - a theory that not even the most skeptical critic believes today

*Was Jesus Seen Alive After His Death On The Cross?
the evidence for the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus didn't develop gradually over the years as mythology distorted memories of his life, rather, said Resurrection expert Gary Habermas, the Resurrection was "the central proclamation of the early church from the very beginning." the ancient creed from 1 Corinthians 15 mentions specific individuals who encountered the risen Christ, and Paul even challenged first-century doubters to talk with these individuals personally to determine the truth of the matter for themselves, the book of Acts is littered with extremely early affirmations of Jesus' resurrection, while the gospels describe numerous encounters in detail, concluded British theologian Michael Green, "The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity ... There can be no rational doubt that they occurred."

*Are There Any Supporting Facts That Point To The Resurrection?

J.P. Moreland's circumstantial evidence adds the final documentation for the Resurrection, first, the disciples were in a unique position to know whether the Resurrection happened, and they went to their deaths proclaiming it was true, nobody knowingly and willingly dies for a lie, second, apart from the Resurrection, there's no good reason why skeptics like Paul and James would have been converted and would have died for their faith, third, within weeks of the Crucifixion, thousands of Jews began abandoning key social practices that had critical sociological and religious importance for centuries, they believed they risked damnation if they were wrong, fourth, the early sacraments of Communion and baptism affirmed Jesus' resurrection and deity, and fifth, the miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution "rips a hole in history, a hole the size and shape of Resurrection," as C.F.D. Moule put it

[squirt]

"I'll admit it: I was ambushed by the amount and quality of the evidence that Jesus is the unique Son of God, as I sat at my desk that Sunday afternoon, I shook my head in amazement, I had seen defendants carted off to the death chamber on much less convincing proof! the cumulative facts and data pointed unmistakably toward a conclusion that I wasn't entirely comfortable in reaching, frankly, I had wanted to believe that the deification of Jesus was the result of legendary development in which well-meaning but misguided people slowly turned a wise sage into the mythological Son of God, that seemed safe and reassuring; after all, a roving apocalyptic preacher from the first century could make no demands on me, but while I went into my investigation thinking that this legendary explanation was intuitively obvious, I emerged convinced that it was totally without basis, what clinched it for me was the famous study by A. N. Sherwin-White, the great classical historian from Oxford University, which William Lane alluded to, Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world, his conclusion: not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth, now consider the case of Jesus, historically speaking, the news of his empty tomb, the eyewitness accounts of his post-Resurrection appearances and the conviction that he was indeed God's unique Son emerged virtually instantaneously, the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, affirming Jesus' death for our sins and listing his post-Resurrection appearances to named witnesses was already being recited by Christians as soon as 24 months after the Crucifixion, Mark's account of the empty tomb was drawn from material that dates back to within a few years of the event itself, the gospels, attesting to Jesus' teachings, miracles and resurrection, were circulating within the lifetimes of Jesus' contemporaries, who would have been only too glad to set the record straight if there had been embellishment or falsehood, the most primitive Christian hymns affirm Jesus' divine nature, Blomberg summed it up this way: Within the first two years after his death, then, significant numbers of Jesus' followers seem to have formulated a doctrine of the atonement, were convinced that he had been raised from the dead in bodily form, associated Jesus with God and believed they found support for all these convictions in the Old Testament, concluded William Craig, "The time span necessary for significant accrual of legend concerning the events of the gospels would place us in the second century A.D., just the time in fact when the legendary apocryphal gospels were born, these are the legendary accounts sought by critics." there was simply nowhere near enough time for mythology to thoroughly corrupt the historical record of Jesus, especially in the midst of eyewitnesses who still had personal knowledge of him, when German theologian Julius Muller in 1844 challenged anyone to find a single example of legend developing that fast anywhere in history, the response from the scholars of his day - and to the present time - was resounding silence, on November 8, 1981, I realized that my biggest objection to Jesus also had been quieted by the evidence of history, I found myself chuckling at how the tables had been turned, in light of the convincing facts I had learned during my investigation, in the face of this overwhelming avalanche of evidence in the case for Christ, the great irony was this: it would require much more faith for me to maintain my atheism than to trust in Jesus of Nazareth!"

Lee Strobel

[squirt]

remember the story of James Dixon? the evidence pointed powerfully toward his guilt for shooting a Chicago police sergeant, he even admitted he did it! yet when a more thorough investigation was conducted, suddenly a shift occurred: the scenario that fit the facts most perfectly was that the sergeant had framed Dixon, who was innocent of the shooting, Dixon was set free and it was the officer who found himself convicted, as we conclude our investigation in the case for Christ, it's worth revisiting the two big lessons learned from that story

* First, Has The Collection of Evidence Really Been Thorough?
yes, it has been, experts were selected who could state their position and defend it with historical evidence that then could be tested through cross-examination, being not merely interested in their opinions; just the facts, they were challenged with the current theories of atheists and liberal professors, given their background, credentials, experience and character, these scholars were more than qualified to present reliable historical data concerning Jesus

* Second, Which Explanation Best Fit the Totality of the Evidence?
by November 8, 1981, Strobel's legend thesis, to which he had doggedly clung for so many years, had been thoroughly dismantled, what's more, his journalistic skepticism toward the supernatural had melted in light of the breathtaking historical evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was a real, historical event, in fact, his mind could not conjure up a single explanation that fit the evidence of history nearly as well as the conclusion that Jesus was who he claimed to be: the one and only Son of God, the atheism he had embraced for so long buckled under the weight of historical truth, it was a stunning and radical outcome, certainly not what he had anticipated when he embarked on this investigative process, but it was, in his opinion, a decision compelled by the facts, all of which led him to the, "So what?" question, if this is true, what difference does it make? there were several obvious implications

* if Jesus is the Son of God, his teachings are more than just good ideas from a wise teacher; they are divine insights on which I can confidently build my life

* if Jesus sets the standard for morality, I can now have an unwavering foundation for my choices and decisions, rather than basing them on the ever-shifting sands of expediency and self-centeredness

* if Jesus did rise from the dead, he's still alive today and available for me to encounter on a personal basis

* if Jesus conquered death, he can open the door of eternal life for me, too

* if Jesus has divine power, he has the supernatural ability to guide me and help me and transform me as I follow him

* if Jesus personally knows the pain and loss of suffering, he can comfort and encourage me in the midst of turbulence that he himself warned is inevitable in a world corrupted by sin

* if Jesus loves me as he says, he has my best interests at heart, that means I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by committing myself to him and his purposes

* if Jesus is who he claims to be (and remember, no leader of any other major religion has even pretended to be related to God), as my Saviour he rightfully deserves my allegiance, obedience and worship

Strobel remembers writing out these implications on his legal pad and then leaning back in his chair, he had reached the culmination of his nearly two-year journey, it was finally time to deal with the most pressing question of all: "Now what?"

[squirt]

after a personal investigation that spanned more than 600 days and countless hours, Strobel's own verdict in the case for Christ was clear, however, as he sat at his desk, he realized that he needed more than an intellectual decision, he wanted to take the experiential step that J.P. Moreland had described, looking for a way to bring that about, he reached over to a bible and opened it to John 1:12, a verse he had encountered during his investigation: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." the key verbs in that verse spell out with mathematical precision what it takes to go beyond mere mental assent to Jesus' deity and enter into an ongoing relationship with him by becoming adopted into God's family: believe + receive = become

1. Believe

as someone educated in journalism and law, Strobel was trained to respond to the facts, wherever they lead, for him: the data demonstrated convincingly that Jesus is the Son of God, who died as my substitute to pay the penalty I deserved for the wrongdoing I had committed, and there was plenty of wrongdoing, I'll spare myself the embarrassment of going into details, but the truth is that I had been living a profane, drunken, self-absorbed and immoral lifestyle, in my career, I had backstabbed my colleagues to gain a personal advantage and had routinely violated legal and eithical standards in pursuit of stories, in my personal life, I was sacrificing my wife and children on the altar of success, I was a liar, a cheater and a deceiver, my heart had shrunk to the point where it was rock hard toward anyone else, my main motivator was personal pleasure - and ironically, the more I hungrily sought after it, the more elusive and self-destructive it became, when I read in the bible that these sins separated me from God, who is holy and morally pure, this resonated as being true, certainly God, whose existence I had denied for years, seemed extremely distant and it became obvious to me that I needed the cross of Jesus to bridge that gulf, said the apostle Peter, "For Christ died for our sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (1 Peter 3:18) - all this Strobel now believed, the evidence of history and not of his own experience was too strong to ignore

2. Receive

every other faith system Strobel studied during his investigation was based on the "do" plan, in other words, it was necessary for people to do something - for example, use a Tibetan prayer wheel, pay alms, go on pilgramages, undergo reincarnations, work off karma from past misdeeds, reform their character - to try to somehow earn their way back to God, despite their best efforts, lots of sincere people just wouldn't make it, Christianity is unique, it's based on the "done" plan - Jesus has done for us on the cross what we cannot do for ourselves: he has paid the death penalty that we deserve for our rebellion and wrongdoing, so we can become reconciled with God, Strobel says, "I didn't have to struggle and strive to try to do the impossible of making myself worthy, over and over the bible says that Jesus offers forgiveness and eternal life as a free gift that cannot be earned (see Rom 6:23, Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5), it's called grace - amazing grace, unmerited favor, it's available to anyone who receives it in a sincere prayer of repentance, even someone like me, yes, I had to take a step of faith, as we do in every decision we make in life, but here's the crucial distinction: I was no longer trying to swim upstream against the strong current of evidence; instead I was choosing to go in the same direction that the torrent of facts was flowing, that was reasonable, that was rational, that was logical, what's more, in an inner and inexplicable way, it was also what I sensed God's Spirit was nudging me to do, so on November 8, 1981, I talked with God in a heartfelt and unedited prayer, admitting and turning from my wrongdoing, and receiving the gift of forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus, I told him that with his help I wanted to follow him and his ways from here on out, there was no lightning bolts, no audible replies, no tingly sensations, I know that some people feel a rush of emotion at such a moment; as for me, however, there was something else that was equally as exhilirating: there was the rush of reason."

3. Become

after taking that step, Strobel knew from John 1:12 that he had crossed the threshold into a new experience, he had become something different: a child of God, forever adopted into his family through the historical, risen Jesus, said the apostle Paul, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come." (2 Cor 5:17), sure enough, over time, as Strobel endeavored to follow Jesus' teachings and open himself to the transforming power, his priorities, his values and his character were (and continue to be) gradually changed, increasingly he wants Jesus' motives and perspective to be his own, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., I may not yet be the man I should be or the man, with Christ's help, I someday will be - but thank God I'm not the man I used to be! Stroble says: maybe that sounds mystical to you; I don't know, not so long ago it would have to me, but it's very real to me now and to those around me, in fact, so radical was the difference in my life that a few months after I became a follower of Jesus, our 5 year-old daughter Allison went up to my wife and said, "Mommy, I want God to do for me what he's done for Daddy." here was a little girl who had only known a father who was profane, angry, verbally harsh and all too often absent, and even though she had never interviewed a scholar, never analyzed the data, never investigated historical evidence, she had seen up close the influence that Jesus can have on one person's life, in effect, she was saying, "If this is what God does to a human being, that's what I want for me." looking back nearly 2 decades, I can see with clarity that the day I personally made a decision in the case for Christ was nothing less than the pivotal event of my entire life

[squirt]

I skipped over the introduction to the book that I've been posting here from because I didn't want to "tip my hand" before all the evidence had been presented, before I post it's conclusion, I'd like to go back to the introduction because it contains information essential to the way this book ends

[squirt]

in the parlance of prosecutors, the attempted murder caase against James Dixon was "a dead-bang winner", open and shut, even a cursory examination of the evidence was enough to establish that Dixon shot police sergeant Richard Scanlon in the abdomen during a scuffle on Chicago's south side, piece by piece, item by item, witness by witness, the evidence tightened a noose around Dixon's neck, there were fingerprints and a weapon, eyewitnesses and a motive, a wounded cop and a defendant with a history of violence, now the criminal justice system was poised to trip the trap door that would leave Dixon dangling by the weight of his own guilt, the facts were simple, Sergeant Scanlon had rushed to West 108th Place after a neighbor called police to report a man with a gun, Scanlon arrived to find Dixon noisily arguing with his girlfriend through the front door of her house, her father emerged when he saw Scanlon, figuring it was safe to come outside, suddenly a fight broke out between Dixon and the father, the sergeant quickly intervened in an attempt to break it up, a shot rang out; Scanlon staggered away, wounded in his midsection, just then two other squad cars arrived, screeching to a halt, and officers ran over to restrain Dixon, a .22 caliber gun belonging to Dixon - covered with his fingerprints and with one bullet having been fired - was found nearby, wheree he had apparently flung it after the shooting, the father had been unarmed; Scanlon's revolver remained in his holster, powder burns on Scanlon's skin showed that he had been shot at extremely close range, fortunately, his wound wasn't life threatening, although it was serious enough to earn him a medal for bravery, proudly pinned on his chest by the police superintendent himself, as for Dixon, when police turned to his rap sheet, they found he had previously been convicted of shooting someone else, apparently he had a propensity for violence, and there I sat, almost a year later, taking notes in a nearly deserted Chicago courtroom while Dixon publicly admitted that, yes, he was guilty of shooting the fifteen-year police veteran, on top of all the other evidence, the confession clinched it, criminal court judge Frank Machala ordered Dixon imprisoned, the rapped his gavel to signal that the case was closed, justice had been served, I slipped my notebook into the inside pocket of my sports coat and ambled downstairs toward the press room, at the most, I figured my editor would give me three paragraphs to tell the story in the next day's Chicago Tribune, certainly, that's all it deserved, this wasn't much of a tale, or so I thought ...

Lee Strobel

[squirt]

I answered the phone in the pressroom and recognized the voice right away - it was an informant I had cultivated during the year I had been covering the criminal courts building, I could tell he had something hot for me, because the bigger the tip, the faster and softer he would talk - and he was whispering a mile a minute, "Lee, do you know that Dixon case?" "Yeah, sure," I replied, "Covered it 2 days ago, pretty routine." "Don't be so sure. The word is that a few weeks ago before the shooting, Sergeant Scanlon was at a party, showing off his pen gun." "His what?" "A pen gun. It's a .22-caliber pistol that's made to look like a fountain pen. They're illegal for anyone to carry, including cops." when I told him I didn't see the relevance of this, his voice got even more animated, "Here's the thing: Dixon didn't shoot Scanlon. Scanlon was wounded when his own pen gun accidentally went off in his shirt pocket. He framed Dixon so he wouldn't get in trouble for carrying an unauthorized weapon. Don't you see? Dixon is innocent!" "Impossible!" I exclaimed. "Check the evidence yourself," came his reply. "See where it really points." I hung up the phone and dashed up the stairs to the prosecutor's office, pausing briefly to catch my breath before strolling inside, "You know the Dixon case?" I asked casually, not wanting to tip my hand too early. "If you don't mind, I'd like to go over the details once more." Color drained from his face, "Uh, I can't talk about it," he stammered. "No comment." it turned out that my informant had already passed along his suspicions to the prosecutor's office, behind the scenes, a grand jury was being convened to reconsider the evidence, amazingly, unexpectedly, the once airtight case against James Dixon was being reopened

[squirt]

at the same time, I started my own investigation, studying the crime scene, interviewing witnesses, talking with Dixon and examining the physical evidence, as I thoroughly checked out the case, the strangest thing happened: all the new facts I uncovered - and even the old evidence that had once pointed so convincinglu toward Dixon's guilt - snugly fit the pen gun theory ...

* witnesses said that before Scanlon arrived at the scene, Dixon had been pounding his gun on the door of his girlfriend's house, the gun discharged in a downward direction; in the cement of the front porch there was a chip that was consistent with a bullet's impact, this would account for the bullet that was missing from Dixon's gun

* Dixon said he didn't want to be caught with a gun, so he hid it in some grass across the street before the police arrived, I found a witness who corroborated that, this explained why the gun had been found some distance from the shooting scene even though nobody had ever seen Dixon throw it

* there were powder burns concentrated inside - but not above - the left pocket of Scanlon's shirt, the bullet hole was at the bottom of the pocket, conclusion: a weapon had somehow discharged in the pocket's interior

* contrary to statements in the police report, the bullet's trajectory had been at a downward angle, below Scanlon's shirt pocket was a bloody rip where the bullet had exited after going through some flesh

* Dixon's rap sheet hadn't told the whole story about him, although he had spent 3 years in prison for an earlier shooting, the appelate court had freed him after determining that he had been wrongly convicted, it turns out that police had concealed a key defense witness and that a prosecution witness had lied, so much for Dixon's record of violent tendencies

[squirt]

finally, I put the crucial question to Dixon: "If you were innocent, why in the world did you plead guilty?" Dixon sighed, "It was a plea bargain," he said, referring to the practice in which prosecutors recommend a reduced sentence if a defendant pleads guilty and thus saves everybody the time and expense of a trial, "They said if I pleaded guilty, they would sentence me to one year in prison. I'd already spent 362 days in jail waiting for my trial. All I had to do was admit I did it and I'd go home in a few days. But if I insisted on a trial and the jury found me guilty - well, they'd throw the book at me. They'd give me 20 years for shooting a cop. It wasn't worth the gamble, I wanted to go home ..." "And so," I said, "you admitted doing something that you didn't do." Dixon nodded, "That's right." in the end Dixon was exonerated, and he later won a lawsuit against the police department, as for me, my stories were splashed across the front page, much more important, I had learned some big lessons as a young reporter, one of the most obvious lessons was that evidence can be aligned to point in more than one direction, for example, there had easily been enough proof to convict Dixon of shooting the sergeant, but the key questions were these: Had the collection of evidence really been thorough? And which explanation best fit the totality of the facts? once the pen gun theory was offered, it became clear that this scenario accounted for the full body of evidence in the most optimal way, and there was another lesson, one reason the evidence originally looked so convincing to me was because it fit my preconceptions at the time, to me, Dixon was an obvious troublemaker, a failure, the unemployed product of a broken family, the cops were the good guys, prosecutors didn't make mistakes, looking through those lenses, all the original evidence seemed to fall neatly into place, where there had been inconsistencies or gaps, I naively glossed them over, when police told me the case was airtight, I took them at their word and didn't delve much further, but when I changed those lenses - trading my biases for an attempt at objectivity - I saw the case in a whole new light, finally I allowed the evidence to lead me to the truth, regardless of whether it fit my original presuppositions, that was more than 20 years ago, my biggest lessons were yet to come