Replies

"Nobody questions that her blood was on the jacket. The relevant question is: how did it get there? The spot was small enough, IIRC, that it could have come from one of her nosebleeds."

Hi drlevy.. Someone wrote a comment previously on this thread about the spot not proven to be blood.
((post #321 "AND.....They were calling the DNA on the jacket BLOOD! IT WASN'T BLOOD!!! "))
I would say that if it was spit or snot, it would have tested negative for the presumptive test of blood.

You are correct..it could have been a nose bleed, but there was no adequate proof it was there by innocent means. Nothing...they couldn't find a single child in the neighborhood to admit that they along with danielle played in the MH. IMHO, the defense was unable to prove, show or adequately explain the reason the blood was found on the MH floor and jacket. It's too hard to ignore..and leaves me thinking if my child's blood was found 'inside' the MH of a neighbor, and was never seen in the MH by other kids..I'd be thinking the worst too. Does that make sense?

You are correct..it could have been a nose bleed, but there was no adequate proof it was there by innocent means.

For whatever it's worth, I would want to know how a single spot on a jacket, supposedly produced by a bloody murder, could have been there by guilty means. Jackets are garments; they can go many places. The inside of the vehicle is another question. If no child ever went in there (but why? if he had a perverted jones for the sight of little kids, wouldn't he want kids to come in there?), it does point a more accusing finger at the vehicle being involved somehow in foul play.