Replies

Having read most of yesterday's thread and all of todays, I'm hearing two different stories regarding the DNA:

The spot on the JACKET and MH was declared A PERFECT MATCH.
As John Jamieson said, the jacket went through the DRY CLEANERS, and it still came out afterward as A PERFECT MATCH.

And yet others on this thread have said it wasn't even proven to be blood!! What's going on here folks? Either it's blood or it isn't. Either it matches (partially or fully) or it doesn't. Did the prosecution and defense put on different experts who disagreed, or did just the prosecution put on DNA experts? Did Feldman address specifically this portion of the DNA evidence in his closing statement, or did he more-or-less skip over it? Regarding DW being in the VD house, I could go get a pair of latex gloves and not leave any fingerprints, either. And even if I knew the child in the bedroom (i.e. not a stranger), I would expect to have him/her cry out if awakened suddenly to see someone other than mom and dad, though in that household late night strangers apparently were common. DW's actions in going to the dry cleaners, doing laundry, etc., can be explained away as not unreasonable. So, in other words, for me, it comes down to the DNA evidence and the evaluation of that would weigh heavily in my decision on guilt or innocence.

And a special thanks to Shezza for yesterdays and todays closing summations - you were great!

If the blood didn't match Feldman's defense would have had experts galore testyfying it didn't. Instead he was silent.

However, WHEN the DNA got there is the question.

"I could go get a pair of latex gloves and not leave any fingerprints, either."

latex gloves do not "cover fingerprints. Latent prints can be taken with latex gloves on, and in some cases (extremely dry skin, psoriasis) they can even help "even" the print.

Also on the stand Wednesday, was DNA analyst, Mitchell Holland, from Bode Technologies in Virginia. He testified that the blond hair found in the bathroom sink of Westerfield's motorhome matches the DNA of Danielle van Dam. Holland also testified that DNA extracted from a bloodstain in David Westerfield's motorhome matches the profile of the 7-year-old victim. Regarding the hair, Holland said the chances are "one in 25 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. When asked about the bloodstain, Holland told prosecutors that the chances were "one in 660 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. "Is this an example where samples match?" asked the prosecution. "Yes, it is," Holland answered. The expert testified that he performed mitochondrial DNA testing, which is different from nuclear DNA testing, on hairs found on clothing in Westerfield's washing machine, dryer and sheets from his master bedroom in Sabre Springs. Holland said he could not exclude Danielle van Dam as the donor of the hairs in question.

http://www.kfmb.com/topstory.php?storyID=9489

The way I read this it appears the hair in the Motorhome was diffently Danielle's but the hairs found in the washing machine, dryer and sheets from Westerfields master bedroom THEY COULD NOT EXCLUDE THEM AS HAVING BEEN DANIELLE'S SO IT IS POSSIBLE THEY WERE SOMEONE ELSE'S.