Replies

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.

Nobody knows just when he did the dastardly deed but I don't think the case will hinge on that.

I agree. In fact I understand that it is NOT incumbent on the prosecution to lay down every step of the crime ... how he got her from point A to point B ... but rather that he had the means and the motive. And the DNA.

I find it extremely difficult to believe if one kidnapped a child and went on a jaunt over the weekend, that when one was questioned about it one would say "we" and include the kidnapped child in the conversation. That is a clear indicator of his guilt. That is just way past too much.