[John Jamieson]

The only problem with the "HARD EVIDENCE", is that it's not evidence of MURDER or KIDNAPPING. It's the kind of evidence that all of us have around our homes and vehicles and don't even know about.

[bvw]

True, it is only possible evidence of presence, and not directly of violence, kidnapping or murder. It would be better evidence -- but only as to presence -- if chain of custody and other procedural checks and proofs had been not so botched up. It would be better if two of the investigating detectives did not have the history they do have of planting (as I remember) evidence.

No exact time affixes by commonsense understanding of the the events and evidence so far presented, nor has been affixed at all strongly by the prosecutors explanations of same, to that presence either.

Therefore to jump to a finding of guilt, requires an assumption of same guilt in inferring beyond mere presence in some time in the past many months, to the far more exacting requiremnts of presence at a murder or kidnap, when almost no other circumstantial evidence so suggests, when not even a mediocre suggestion is made as to motive, when there is NO testimony to any prior related or violent behaviour on the part of the defendant, and when there has been (indirectly) strong character testimony as to Westerfield's good, gentlemanly, charitable and honest character.