Replies

It's too early for a hung jury, minion. Judge Mudd would not allow it so soon, IMHO.

Kerensky..you wrote "Danielle was wearing pajamas when she left the house. Brenda said she bought an identical set of pajamas for Danielle's sleep over guest that was still in Danielle's room. Given that the two sets are identical, fibers identical to the second set should be in DW's house, SUV and motor home. If these fibers were not found, DW is not guilty.

I don't think I have ever read this theory before? But I do like it.

"Danielle was wearing pajamas when she left the house. Brenda said she bought an identical set of pajamas for Danielle's sleep over guest that was still in Danielle's room. Given that the two sets are identical, fibers identical to the second set should be in DW's house, SUV and motor home. If these fibers were not found, DW is not guilty."

Just wondering, was an analysis ever run on the "second" pair of PJs to test for Danielle's DNA? Or did investigators just take Brenda's word that they're for "guests"? Seems like receipt(s) could have proven whether or not two identical sets of PJs were purchased. So Danielle was wearing the original pajamas when she was "taken" from the house that night? Did they ever find them? My feeling: that "extra set" Brenda refers to is the ONLY set, worn only by Danielle. I think she knows what happened, and she's covering for him.