"One might say, he was convinced of guilt, because of the blood."Therefore you are saying that the juror is saying there is NO other reasonable way the "blood" -- some shmear containing DNA, as testified to -- could be there. The ONLY reaonable explanation for the shmear is that it got there when took the girl and murdered her. That denies the alternate and reasonable explanations that the shmear was (1) placed there after the fact by some party (2) placed there by Brenda or Danielle or one of her brothers during some explore in the MH at some point over the past year or so.
Further it requires a leap of faith, a leap that has been ignored from remark in this proceeding and commentaries on it.
What is that leap of faith? That Danielle was murdered at all. She is dead and her body discovered far from home, but murder was never demonstrated -- itself -- beyond a reasonable doubt.
To me just the condition of the body -- that no cause of death could be determined, that no visible sign of trauma was discovered -- meant that absent direct evidence such as a bloody knife, blood splatter, blood trails, choking device with matching marks, blunt instrument with matching marks and/or body material embedded in it, without any of those direct evidences no murder can ever be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I can not explain why that basic and fundamental deficiency in evidence was not more in peoples minds and discourses. It is troubling.
Agree with that statement murder was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, could have been an accident and cover-up.