[crystalk]

Conflicting testimony on size of DNA spot on jacket. It was not said to be blood. It was either .25 inch or 1.25 in in diameter, and I go with the smaller size. It was not blood, but some other DNA (such as spittle?)-- not identified.

It is very hard to see how it would get up near the right side collar like that if the jacket was being worn at the time. Looks more like it was put on when the jacket was hanging up somewhere. Men usually hold small children with the head of the latter to the left, not right, of their own head.

More likely a very small medical sample of some body fluid of Danielle's was available to LE, and they planted it in two tiny spots, one on the jacket and the other on another surface in the MH.

[small_l_libertarian]

The 1/4" stain was the one on the floor in the MH. The one on the jacket was supposedly fairly big, dropwise (not like buckets of blood, though, obviously). I find it quite odd that the dry cleaner didn't see a big red stain on the front of a green jacket.

[the-gooroo]

They had blood available to them from the blood on the cuff of her pj's that were found Sat. morning on her bedroom floor. I believe the testimony was she had soiled her underwear and pj's. Feldman had proof that some of the detectives had been reprimanded in the past for falsifying evidence to get an arrest warrant. Mudd prevented him from putting that in front of the jury. Also the stains were not drops of blood but more like a swipe.

[UCANSEE2]

More likely a very small medical sample of some body fluid of Danielle's was available to LE, and they planted it in two tiny spots, one on the jacket and the other on another surface in the MH.

Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the EVIDENCE in this case was not FOUND on the FIRST SEARCH. It was FOUND after DW was ARRESTED and after DANIELLE's BODY had been FOUND.

Isn't this TRUE?