John,
I have followed this trial very closely. There was no testimony that her hair was in his bed. The partial thumbprint was actually on a cabinet; an upper one, if I recall correctly. The handling of the 'blood' on the jacket was poor, at best. No photo taken before it was cut out and apparently the entire alleged 1-3/16" spot was destroyed in testing and whether it was actually blood or not does not seem to be firmly established.
As for the 1/4" alleged blood spot on the MH carpet; once again, no photograph taken prior to cutting it out of the carpet, and the entire sample was destroyed in testing. Seems to be a bit of a problem with chain of control.
The work by the SDPD and the prosecutor appears to have been very sloppy. DW may have done it; but there is much that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is reasonable doubt. If DW did it, I don't think the evidence in this trial proves it. Even if convicted, I think he will get a new trial on appeal. If aquitted; it will be because of the bugs.
As for the porn; the prosecution's witnesses attempted to portray it all as being downloaded by DW when much of it was downloaded by his son. In this area, both the prosecution and defense lied.
Don
P.S. I always enjoy reading your columns on your web site and your comments on FR.
Are they of pre-pubescent girls or girls over 18 who are posed to look under 18?
I am sure this has been discussed but figured you could provide me an answer.
Has Nancy Grace stated for the record that they are actual photos of prepubescent girls?