Replies

I wouldn't say they planted anything. However, he lived in the neighborhood for five years and kept his motorhome there until too many complaints forced him to move it to a storage facility in November 2001. During the previous years, he kept in parked on the street and in his driveway, frequently unlocked, sometimes OPEN. The place was crawling with kids, and at the end of the street was a park. He also kept the MH at the park, open and unlocked, while doing repairs and installing an awning. Considering there were hundreds of hairs from many, many (unidentified) sources in the vehicle, not to mention hundreds of prints, less than half of which were identified, the MH got frequent and varied guests. Perhaps even some curious peekers (Danielle, even? Dylen, even? Derrick, even?)

The single hair found which is consistent with Danielle was in the sink trap, and matched 12 out of 13 DNA markers tested. (Note: It takes a match of 25 markers to indicate a match of a maternal relative. Why did they only test 13 of those 25? They got 12 positives and stopped testing after the first negative marker? Why did the hair only match 12 out of the 13 tested, and possibly only 12 out of 25 DNA markers? How long had it been there? Why was it degraded to the point where they couldn't read more markers? Wouldn't someone's hair PERFECTLY match in every way their DNA profile?)

Other hairs could not exclude Danielle, but could be Brenda's or the boys'. Lots of color-treated blonde hairs were found, including on and under the bed's mattress, but none of Danielle's. They weren't tested to see whose they were. No hairs of Danielle's on the headboard, where Dusek said she banged her head repeatedly during the hypothetical rape scene. None of Danielle's DNA on that bed where Dusek said she met her demise. No blood spatters on the walls, no blood or Danielle's DNA on the comforter or sheets (but other hairs were there, not Danielle's).

Hairs that might have been Layla's were there, lots and lots of them. You know what that might indicate? That Layla dashed in the MH when it was open and on the street (or at the park) and Danielle followed her to get her out. Put her left hand on the side of the cabinet to look out the window or to steady herself while trying to drag out the overactive and stubborn dog (leaving one print in the entire MH), then left, Layla in tow. Plausible explanation, certainly.

The blood? Well, first of all, that tiny droplet was never tested to see if it was blood--it was just presumed to be so. (Yes, they do have tests to tell whether or not it is blood, human blood, or something else. They just didn't do them.) Secondly, kayti, I think, said that since Danielle was known to have frequent nosebleeds (as per Brenda's testimony), perhaps she dropped a bit of blood on the sidewalk on her way from the park back home. David Westerfield, loading motorhome parked at the curb, steps in that spot of blood from Danielle's nosebleed there on the sidewalk, and carries it to the carpet on the bottom of his shoe. Plausible explanation, certainly.

If there are two reasonable, plausible explanations to explain a piece of evidence, one pointing towards guilt and one pointing towards innocence, even if the "guilt" explanation is more intriguing or more plausible, the law says the jury has to, MUST, accept the plausible explanation pointing towards innocence.

Reasonable doubt.