[Yeti]

Did it ever occur to you, that if DW KNEW there were these tiny drops of blood on say his jacket and comforter, all he had to do was cut HOLES in the area of the specks...flush down the toilet, or heck, set fire to the fibers in an ashtray and POOF..all gone?

If he thought he had her blood on his jacket, he could have tossed it into a dumpster behind a gas station at any time.

He had no reason to hide his jacket. The blood was his, dripped or smeared onto the jacket while reaching across it for something after he scratched his arm digging out. Likewise the drip on the carpet.

Remember, for the prints to have been real, she would have had to be alive in the MH. Means he would have had to carry a live child to the MH from his house in broad daylight at 8:30 in the am SAT. He was actually seen draining the water from the home, as usual that morning. No way. Just no way it went down like that. No way did he carry a live kid into the home like that.

Feldman is saying Locard, I am saying the weak reasoning and the handling of the case point to LE tampering and falsification of evidence.

[Greg Weston]

There aren't too many master criminals out there. They make mistakes. Like Westerfield did.

[spectre]

Well, what you say is more than reasonable..

Remember, the only source of education the Juror's have to look for guidance on their verdict is Court TV, and the Rick Roberts show...(I'll give GW Bush a pass)...so they aren't even aware of your talking points...sigh.

BTW, I used to think that tampering with the EVIDENCE only took place in MOVIES...ha, ha, ha. I was so naive!

sw

[the Deejay]

There were *sooooo* many places he could have dumped anything along the routes he took.

Why dump the body of all things, so near a busy/heavily
travelled road? That in itself wouldn't make sense. Plus,
where would he have parked the RV while treking up the
hill carrying the body? Feldman pointed these things out
today & in a big way.