Sounds like Mudd will be instructing the jury that they cannot consider DAW guilty on first count (murder) without them being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the kidnapping as presented by Dusek's case. So if they can't say Westerfield did WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, or WHY, that would (to me) indicate reasonable doubt of the kidnapping charge, which would thus negate the murder charge. Did I hear that correctly?
On the other hand, even if there is no proof, if they suspect him of entering Danielle's home, staggering his way up the staircase, spiriting her out of her bed and out of her house, they can find him guilty of murder even if they just suspect him of kidnapping. In this case, the two are inextricably linked.
OTOH, the way I heard Judge Mudd say it..Is that there is evidence that LINKS DW to the child, therefor they can conclude that he did indeed kidnapp and murder her.
In other words, IMO, if the jury is convinced that the fiber, hair and prints link DW to Danielle, then they must assume that he kidnapped her and killed her. (Nevermind how they got there?)
Someone tell me I'm wrong...please.
sw