Well then, this does all hinge on the handprint and the blood doesn't it.
Yes, and if you believe that it's reasonable that she could have gotten (innocently) into his motorhome at sometime in the past, you have to acquit. I'm absolutely amazed at the amount of smoke and mirrors in this case. DW may indeed have killed DVD, but the state did not come anywhere close to proving that he did.
Well, therein lies my other problem with the prosecution's case. We don't know how the handprint and the blood spots got there, but we
do know that the dogs did not catch her scent in the motorhome--and I do discount the bragging "secret" emails 180-Frank sent out to his friends; his dog never hit on anything, but he wanted to make it seem so. If the child had been in that motorhome that weekend, the dogs would have gone wild--not just Frazee's, but the others as well.
I can only conclude that the handprint and the blood spots were left there long before. One article on how scent dogs function said there should be a scent for up to two weeks. If she'd been there all weekend, dead or alive or dead some of the time and alive some of the time--any combination--the dogs would have "said" so, definitively, not ambiguously.