[meadsjn]

You have to take all the evidence and testimony as one and then make an inference. You don't make an inference for each piece.

Here's a repost of the Jury Instructions from mommya in post #145. Please try to read more carefully. The bold type specifically refutes your statement above.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

BOTH DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER. HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT PERMITS TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

[crystalk]

Do you suppose ALL of the clothes in Danielle's closet were HERS, or were clothes of other family members, or old clothes etc. stored there too? One could hardly have placed a pocket comb, much less a whole man the size of DW, into that closet!

[formerDem]

"It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They many be proved also by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence."

"[in order for the jury to reach a] RATIONAL conclusion..."

"...Further, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIALto complete a set of circumstances..." (not ALL facts, just those that are essential)

"Beyond a REASONABLE doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a REASONABLE doubt, each fact or circumstances upon which the inference NECESSARILY rests must be proved beyond a REASONABLE doubt."

* * * *

The Van Dams put their children at risk. They were stupid, selfish, and for all their so-called "sophistication' were excrutiatingly naive about the real dangers of their 'lifestyle'. They left themselves and their children vulnerable. Someone took advantage of that vulnerability. All the evidence points to David Westerfield. There is no EVIDENCE that the Van Dams or anyone other than Mr. Westerfield killed their daughter. The fact that fiber or hair from Mr. Westerfield was not FOUND in the VD house does not mean that he was not in there, it just means that no hair or fiber was found. A REASONABLE, RATIONAL person would infer from all the circumstantial and direct evidence that David Westerfield committed this crime.

It is disappointing to see so many FR posters allowing themselves to become unreasonable and irrational; indulging in bizzare conspiracy theories, elaborate and complex scenarios for which there is no direct or circumstantial evidence, and most troubling of all, wanting Westerfield acquitted to punish the Van Dams albeit, under the guise of 'reasonable doubt'.