The problem with the evidence against Westerfield is that most of it lends itself more towards pointing to innocence than guilt.
Motor home- The fingerprints, the two hairs and one drop of blood on the carpet and a spot on the jacket, all are compatible with a brief visit made to use the bathroom sink to wash out a cut or maybe she wanted to use the bathroom and wasn't aware she was bleeding. Jacket is in bathroom, possibly left there to dry.
The MH was in front of his house to be loaded for trips and to be cleaned afterwards. It's reasonable to assume he didn't close and lock the doors while loading and unloading MH. She had plenty of opportunities to enter MH.
No evidence of rape, the dogs should have picked up the scent of a girl on board for days. The fibers are not even worth mentioning since no source, except to say that it is hard to believe that fibers could be implanted in the headboard and yet no hair is found.
Where is she bleeding from, that it would get on his collar? Her mouth? There should have been alot more blood if he had knocked her teeth out. The absence of teeth seems to show that she had been dead a while before she was dumped at Dehesa. Giving them time to fall out. Like say a week to ten days.
The hairs in Westerfields bed show that the sheets weren't cleaned and evidence of rape should have been present. Lacking evidence of rape, an innocent explanation for the hairs is a reasonable assumption.
His weekend trip is evidence of a guy alone for the first time, trying to figure out what to do, than that of a murderer. Driving back home to fill his water tanks and coming back briefly that afternoon makes no sense, if guilty.
The porn is up to the individual to assign significance. To me the child porn is balanced by the small amount compared to the rest of it. I would think a true pedophile would have more. But that's my bias.
Gee, I haven't even got to the bug guys yet.
I think you're preaching to the choir.
The state's evidence is pretty strong, taken whole, without looking left or right.
Only by ignoring the defense testimony could the jury come up with this verdict of guilty.
They did and they did.
I disagree with the verdict, and as I've said before "it'll still be a hung jury, if I were serving."