Why? Are the scenarios we're talking about here (blood swipes vs. stains, drool vs. blood) too low on the probability scale to be taken seriously by any except conspiracy theorists and murder writers, and therefore too unlikely to be given serious consideration by the jury? Were any of these alternate theories even brought up by the defense, or with the large amount of other inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, would it have been self defeating for Feldman to bring this up? Interesting question for analysis after a verdict.