Replies

Mudd is basic in reasoning that if her print was in the Motor Home, then the Jury has to arrive at the conclusion that she was indeed kidnapped by DW. Forget that there is no evidence of him in the home.

I'm confused and I missed this AM's entire proceedings. If I am to read this right the judge actually told the jury that they are to decide if DW kidnapped DVD based only on the fingerprint? If so, that is absurd we would not need a jury if this were the case.
I belive a jury is instructed to weigh evidence in and of itself not as it relates to other pieces of evidence. As we've stated too many times the print in the MH just taken by itself means that 1)DVD was in the MH AT SOME TIME. 2)LE put it there.

The UNIDENTIFIED prints and UNIDENTIFIED DNA, since they are evidence also, weighed by their own merit tell us what? That there is a third UNIDENTIFIED party in this crime scene and THAT is what gives the reasonable dout that DW is the kidnapper.

I was waiting for you to come on the scene.

Judge Mudd was speaking to Feldman, when Feldman tried to get the "kidnapping" charges against DW dropped today...because there was no evidence of DW in the Van Dam home.

Judge Mudd told him exactly what I wrote. "Her print was in his motor-home, so I have to assume he kidnapped her"..

It didn't sound TO ME like the Judge was bending over to hear any reason why her print was there.

It will be VERY interesting to hear exactly HOW he instructs the Jury. I hope to gosh he doesn't say what he said out of the Juror's range to them tomorrow.

Of course, there is the possibility the Juror's saw this on Court TV this morning too..

Like I said, Alex...I hope I am wrong.

Make me wrong.