Replies

I certainly respect your opinions, but I do have a few serious questions. The forensic evidence is circumstantial in nature, which is as valid as direct evidence, certainly gives good reason to suspect Westerfield.

What troubles me is that the prosecutions theory seems to be so open-ended and consists of much speculation as to how DW actually could have done it. A few questions that have not been answered that would cause me to vote 'not guilty' are:

1. Where is the evidence that DW was in the VD home? Even the prosecution has admitted that they found none.

2. How could DW keep a body in the motor home for up to two days and the dogs not alert when used to detect the presence of Danielle in the motor home?

3. What about all the fiber, finger prints, DNA that has not been identified? Where is the evidence that establishes when this evidence was deposited? I will grant that this forensic evidence, on its own, is very strong,

4. Most of all; how does a reasonable person explain away the bug evidence that four experts testified about and concluded that the body was disposed of no earlier that 2/9, but more likely 2/16; the day Damon was known to be driving in the desert in the Dehesa area pasing out flyers and almost immediately there after suggested that LE look closer to town?

DW may have murdered Danielle, but the prosecutor has fallen far short of eliminating reasonable doubt. Had the DA not been in such a hurry to indict, he may have been able to better develope the evidence; but he didn't.