REASONABLE DOUBT was abundant in this trial. It's a sad day. Indeed it is. Maybe some day we'll know the details about what's behind all this.
I think a major issue on appeal will be the judges instructions that said if the jury found that DW murdered her, they must also find that he kidnapped her and vice versa. Quite frankly, there was no evidence that DW was ever in the VD home AT ANY TIME. Then there is the problem with the defense being denied access to the alleged scene of the crime, i.e. the VD residence. One should not be too surprised if the kidnapping conviction is reversed on appeal.
The judge's refusal to allow the defense to present third-party evidence may also be a basis for appeal. There were certainly a lot of other people who had easier access to Danielle than DW.
Certainly there was some circumstantial evidence against DW and there was some physical evidence as well. However, what the prosecution never proved was when and how the evidence got there. Then there were the bugs.
The jury found that DW did kidnap and murder Danielle and a jury verdict cannot be lightly dismissed or disregarded; so maybe DW did murder her. But maybe he didn't.
If DW is innocent (yes, I know he was found guilty; but juries have been wrong, especially when prosecutors are dishonest and try to hide evidence that tends to exonerate the defendant. It happens all the time and the prosecutors just hope it isn't discovered later.), he does have one thing going for him. His case has drawn such wide-spread publicity that one or more investigative journalists will have the time and interest to dig into all the evidence and discover the real truth. If he actually did murder Danielle, one would assume more evidence will be uncovered that confirms the jury verdict. The sooner this happens, the better.
I suspect some jurors might eventually have reservations about their decision, especially if they learn of facts hidden from them by the prosecution or evidence disallowed by the judge.
If DW is actually innocent, there is one lesson everyone should learn. Never cooperate with the police in an investigation and certainly do not talk to them without your attorney's presence, especially if no one has been arrested for the crime. If the police can't find the real criminal and the public is demanding results, guess what? You may just become the focus of all their attention because they need an arrest and they don't have anyone else. If DW had not agreed to let the cops inspect his house, vehicles, or other property, the cops could not have gotten a search warrant unless there was some evidence that DW had been in the VD home. There was no possible basis to establish probable cause without such evidence.
In this case, maybe a hung jury would have been the best result and would have allowed for another trial and more developement of the evidence. There were so many unanswered questions.
On the other hand, if DW actually committed the crimes, he should fry. If he didn't, I think more evidence will eventually come to light that proves he is innocent.
Or learn they didn't have all the facts that pointed toward guilt, like knowing where the body was before its discovery.