“Is it not irrelevant to their case to present the information that, 500 years ago, blood transfusions were disapproved of?”
That would depend on the view being offered. If, for instance, Santinelli believed the Apostolic Decree was a permanent tenet of Christian faith and that transfusion was essentially the same as eating blood then his view would not be irrelevant despite being centuries old. But Santinelli held neither of these views.
By the way, there is some extremely sloppy research in this particular legal brief. That whole thing about Pope Innocent the VIII having a blood transfusion is at least as bogus as a 3-dollar US bill. But I decline to assert inclusion of this bad information as dishonestly because Watchtower is not the first to share the idea. On the other hand, Watchtower is unique in its usage of Santinelli’s statements on blood transfusion. What Santinelli said has nothing whatsoever to do with modern transfusion practice and offers no support whatsoever to its blood doctrine. If anything, what Santinelli said condemns Watchtower’s taboo on blood.