I hope you'll forgive me if I ignore the debate over how much the evidence weighs. I'm really not sure how to calibrate that measurement, in any event (the only thing that comes to mind is the weight of the paper submitted in evidence, in which case the ton or more figure is certainly closer to the truth than the 1/2 gram)
However, if we look at what the evidence proves instead, we get a truly mixed picture. The evidence presented really is sufficient to prove contact between Westerfield and DVD. Of course, contact during the cookie sale, and then dancing with the mother, was either proven or stipulated by both sides.
There is also sufficient evidence to prove that she had been inside the motor home. This is a critical question, when was she there? The defense says she had gotten in at some time in the past - uncertain as to when. The opportunity did exist, if Danielle occasionally wandered away from her parents' control (one reason the prosecution does not want to admit this, even if it makes the kidnapping scenario easier). Also, the relative paucity of evidence of her being in the motor home adds some credence to this. Nevertheless, the defense did very little to counter this - they didn't put up any actual evidence of when she was there, or have experts testify that lack of scent/fingerprints/etc indicates passage of time. If the jury believes it to have been recent, they are likely to convict.
Finally, we have the blood/DNA evidence. I am placing this apart from simple contact, because that is how the prosecution is playing it. Now, I know my niece's consider skinned knees to be a vital fashion accessory, so I tend not to consider blood drops to be more than contact. If the prosecution wanted to prove this point, I think they would have needed to show a splatter pattern, which they failed to do because the police failed to follow procedure, and photographed it with a polaroid. Again, however, the defense offered little in the way of counter evidence or criticism on this. So, will the jury think the same way or not?
As far as I can tell, this is pretty much the sum total of evidence the prosecution has presented. They talk about how his habits differed on this trip from others, and they speculate a lot about what might have happened, but don't present anything concrete. Is that a "ton" of evidence? Personally, I don't think so.
Drew Garrett
Brenda denied it. Westerfield never mentioned it in his statement to the cops either.
To me Blood, DNA, fingerprints, hair, dog hair, fibers, desert trip, clean up = "Ton". Of course you can disagree.