[UCANSEE2]

Let's get down to basics.

In order for the Prosecution to prove their case they have the following:

(1) 1 partial print in the MH.

(2) 1 blond hair found in the lint trap of the sink in the MH.

(3) 1 spot on the carpet by the bathroom in the MH containing DNA matching (?)Danielle's.

(4) 1 spot on the jacket recovered from the Drycleaners containing DNA matching (?)Danielle's.

This is the WHOLE of the EVIDENCE the PROSECUTION has. PERIOD.

Now, how much of this is valid?

How likely is it that the LE's/Investigators/DA's office would 'plant' the evidence?

I find it really funny that all of the above evidence wasn't found until AFTER DW was THE CHOSEN ONE. Until after police had a manner to obtain false evidence (prints,DNA, etc)

OR AM I WRONG?

Was the PRINT in the MH discovered before or after recovery of Danielle's body?

Before or after LE's dusted Danielle's room and said they found 'NONE OF DANIELLE's PRINTS' in her own bedroom?

Was the 1 blond hair found before or after Danielle's body was found?

Was the spot in the MH found before after her body was found?

What about the fact that the DNA comparison was done from a sampling from Danielle's underwear?

Was the DNA taken from the MH, and from the 'jacket' really ever compared to Danielle's DNA from her body.

I believe that they compared Danielle's DNA to Brenda/Damons to ID the body. But did they go back and match that to the tests done on jacket/carpet/underwear?

Everyone assumes that the jacket was in the MH. What if it wasn't? Police didn't find it there. Is the jacket they tested the one that usually was left in the MH ?

If not, would that be better/worse for DW?

[small_l_libertarian]

UCANSEE2 - Here's another wild theory for ya'. Danielle's underwear were described as Size 8 Hanes Her Way's.

Size 8 Child or Size 8 Adult? I have Hanes Her Way's and they don't say "Adult" or "Ladies." Just "5."

So, could it have been Brenda's underwear?

[the Deejay]

There are just way too many holes & questions
in this poor excuse for a prosection. Having
said that, if I were on the jury, I could not/
would not convict & send a man to prison & a
possible death sentence on those holes & questions.

[The Other Harry]

Let's get down to basics.

Great post!

I've been sort of wondering whether Feldman shouldn't have suggested / implied during his closing arguments the possibility that at least some of the forensic evidence looked awfully fishy. As in, *very* fishy.

[juzcuz]

I do see a plausible reason for Danielle's blood on the green jacket. It's believeable that Danielle's blood could have gotten on his jacket while the jacket in his house. Danielle and her mom were there -at Dw's house (twice) for cookie sales. His jacket could have been on a chair in his kitchen or something. Kids do easily get cuts and scrapes, she could have carried blood on her hand and touched his jacket on one of their visits.

[shezza]

I'm way behind on reading this thread, but here is an excerpt from Jeffrey Graham's testimony (June 9, afternoon):

Q: HOW MANY LATENTS DO YOU THINK YOU WERE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THAT MOTOR HOME?

A: I GOT A TOTAL OF SIXTEEN CARDS. IMPRESSIONS I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

Q: WHEN DID YOU GO OUT AND DO THAT?

A: APRIL 17TH.

(Danielle's body was found February 27)