Perhaps...but this is a swiss cheese prosecution...it has so many holes in it, it stinks...

Like blood on Westerfield's jacket? I'd convict him on that alone.

OH my gosh.....

I don't even believe this crap myself???

I wonder if these nimrod jurors will...

At least MUDD DOES....Hee Hee....

Like blood on Westerfield's jacket? I'd convict him on that alone.

All depends on how the blood got there. Possibilities include:

Westerfield killed her, and homicide can get messy.
The real killer put it there to lay a false trail.
Danielle came in contact with the jacket innocently while having a nose bleed or something.
The criminalist is lying or incompetent, and therefore, the evidence isn't real.

Admittedly, possibility 1 is intuitively the most likely (although homicidal messiness usually goes beyond one drop, and efforts to clean up leave their own signs). However, if you believe the defense's entymology, possibility 1 is ruled out, because DW could not have beamed the body to where it was found while under 24x7 surveillance.

Also, it is troubling that there is the still no convincing account of how DW got possession of the girl in the first place. There is no evidence for the theory he went into her bedroom and carried her away. No one saw him or heard him or the girl, and he left no physical evidence on the premises. If he did do it, he must have found her sleepwalking and snatched her away with no one seeing or hearing anything.

Now, possibility 2 is the most intriguing. If the real killer were her parents or someone in their circle of wild friends, then we would not need to account for the quietness of the kidnapping ... and the physical evidence against DW would have an alternative explanation. Of course, if possibility 2 is true, there is at this point, alas, about as much likelihood of bringing her killer to justice as there is of catching Jon Benet's murderer.