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.
Are you sure about the swipe? Because all you would have to do to get a swipe of Danielle's blood is dip the sleeve of the PJs with her blood on them in distilled water, wipe the jacket, and wait for it to dry. Scary stuff.
Apparently her panties were in immed assoc with the pjs and obviously had been worn by her on the night in question. There was a substantial body-fluid stain in the crotch of these panties, not blood, urine, or feces. It was indicative of a vaginal discharge. [That in turn in a 7-yr-old is often taken as evidence of molestation.]
It was THIS STAIN which was used as the basis for all later determination of Danielle's DNA being found here or there, blood or whatever.
In theory, if these panties could have been someone else's, or the vaginal discharge someone else's, the whole thing could have been fooled.