Replies

My take on this is that Danielle was in the motorhome up to a year prior to her abduction, leaving behind a few hairs and one blood spot. Blood spots cannot be dated, but now we know those dogs would have found her scent in there had she been in the motorhome that weekend. It should have been quite strong. Vacuuming would not have removed the scent--the article clearly states that the dogs still found scent even after objects had been moved. Nope, she was not in there that weekend, period.

Now, the only problem is, is the jury astute enough to realize that?

Or, is DW cursed with an emotional jury that is going to play their feelings over the hard evidence?

Remember, nearly every member of that jury has small children.

Yep, I agree.

My take on this is that Danielle was in the motorhome up to a year prior to her abduction, leaving behind a few hairs and one blood spot. Blood spots cannot be dated, but now we know those dogs would have found her scent in there had she been in the motorhome that weekend. It should have been quite strong. Vacuuming would not have removed the scent--the article clearly states that the dogs still found scent even after objects had been moved. Nope, she was not in there that weekend, period.

Here's another variable-can whatever object(I want to say it was a T-shirt)that the dog handlers used to key the dogs be tied to Danielle VanDam and ONLY Danielle VanDam? What I'm thinking is that the two VanDam boys could also have been in that motor home at some point. If whatever scent marker used was contaminated by other members of the VanDam family,and if it's true that residual scent can last up to a year,then the City of San Diego might just have spent an unholy amount of money to be able to say that,"We're pretty sure that someone from the VanDam household has been in the motorhome within the past year."

My take on this is that Danielle was in the motorhome up to a year prior to her abduction, leaving behind a few hairs and one blood spot. Blood spots cannot be dated, but now we know those dogs would have found her scent in there had she been in the motorhome that weekend. It should have been quite strong. Vacuuming would not have removed the scent--the article clearly states that the dogs still found scent even after objects had been moved. Nope, she was not in there that weekend, period.

You and I agree on this. In my mind, the failure of the dogs to alert on the MH is definitive. The stains, hair, hand-print, and fiber evidence could have all been deposited at any time. And they might not even have been Danielle's in the first place. But I will give some solid points to the prosecution here. This *is* their most damning evidence.

Dogs not alerting on the MH?

I don't think DW knows how to clean out a MH in such a way that a dog would not alert on her scent -- dead, alive, wrapped in something, whatever -- if DvD had been in that MH in the past few days. To me, that's critical.