at 123. Dr. Mittal agreed that the fact that the knife had been left in the wound in the victim’s back did not alter his medical conclusion. Id. at 128. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s argument to the jury was . based upon reasonable inferences from the evidence. Further, we agree with the Commonwealth that, contrary to Appellant’s contention, the prosecutor’s use of the word “speculation” did not urge the jury to base its verdict on conjecture, but rather was a colloquial way of saying that the prosecutor was not in the room at the time the fatal stabbing was committed. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments were not improper, and counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to lodge a meritless objection. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d at 278 (<HOLDING>). VII. Appellate Counsel Ineffectiveness In his
holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advance novel and unaccepted theories holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failure to present cumulative evidence holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument holding that an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection