[AppyPappy]

a green windbreaker that experts testified had a small drop of Danielle's blood on the shoulder. The defense never explained the blood.

Surely Westerfield testified to his innocence at the trial. He could have explained it easily.

[bvw]

Yet another Court TV approved idea about the trial. That Westerfield should have testified, otherwise he is guilty.

What happened to independent thinking?

[fivecatsandadog]

Police suspicion turned to Westerfield because he was the only van Dam neighbor authorities were unable to contact in the days after Danielle was discovered missing on Feb. 2.

Who wrote this? Geez, they had to have more than that - suspicious because he wasn't home? Ok, so then they discovered he did some meandering out to the desert (not unusual for him) and to the beach (also not unusual). So what? Sounds to me like he was the most convenient boob to pin the crime on. Remind me not to go on vacation next time some neighbor gets molested/murdered.

And why hasn't the defense explained the blood on his windbreaker? Are they holding the smoking gun? Is the blood absolutely and exclusively Danielle's? Or could it be Brenda's?

[carenot]

"Surely Westerfield testified to his innocence at the trial. He could have explained it easily."

I am here late to the case but Westerfield didn't testify.

And the expert wasn't sure the stain was blood. Much less who's it was. Also no blood was found on the comforter.

Why didn't the investigators find any of the little girl's fingerprints anywhere in the house she lived in?

As I said, I am new to the case and have not been reading about it except for yesterday and today.

If I am wrong about anything I said, please correct me.