Replies

I've been trying to figure it out also. The defense got off to a good start, I'd say. Showing some of the prosecution's case to be silly..the hose, the light, the locked motorhome, sweaty Dave, animal dna experts,... I'm interested in how the girls prints and blood got in the MH.
The prosecution didn't make it clear on how he got her out of the house, did he take her to his house and kill her, did he drive around with her, did he have her body in the MH when he went to get his wallet??? I have alot of questions.

The Defense is doing a great job. Their witnesses today all seemed to be nice, conservative family people..the sincere type.

Contrast that with the Van Dam's character witnesses...shudder shudder.

sw

You put your finger on it, or at least some of it. How did the girl's handprint get on the cabinet above the bed (the bed abutted the cabinets)? That means she was standing on the bed facing the cabinets, perhaps with her back toward her attacker. Further, how did her blood get in the motor home. How likely is it that she wandered in and bled? How did her blood get on his jacket? I don't think the defense can adequately explain these away. All the rest the defense will present (and has been presenting) to discredit the prosecution case will be no more than a smokescreen. In answer to other of your questions, I don't think the prosecution is certain of all the MO. It's likely he simply carried the girl out of the house the same way he entered it, stifling her cries.The house was asleep. I think he drove around with her, thus the prints and blood in the motor home. He also made that slip, saying we, when he should have said I, when describing his rambling journey.Nobody knows just when he did the dastardly deed but I don't think the case will hinge on that.

I've been trying to figure it out also. The defense got off to a good start, I'd say. Showing some of the prosecution's case to be silly..the hose, the light, the locked motorhome, sweaty Dave, animal dna experts,... I'm interested in how the girls prints and blood got in the MH.

Didn't someone yesterday testify that the MH was sometimes left out in front of DW's house for several days before or after a trip? If this is so, I find it completely reasonable that the neighbor kids had gone inside to check it out (you know how kids are), and that would explain the handprint, the hair, and the blood (kids always seem to have little cuts and scrapes).

The prosecution didn't make it clear on how he got her out of the house, did he take her to his house and kill her, did he drive around with her, did he have her body in the MH when he went to get his wallet??? I have alot of questions.

I have alot of those same questions. It seems to me that when a murder is committed, it's pretty hard to hide evidence thereof. Things get bloody, little clues get left everywhere. The presence of a few hairs from the family dog is not something I find particularly persuasive. He could have picked up the hairs from his own driveway (hairs blow around, you know?) and tracked them all over his house, and the MH. It isn't as if the prosecution introduced evidence of a big ol' hair ball, or something!

Although that would have been amusing...HAIR BALL INCOMING!