....this is not a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle mystery in which you, the viewing public, get to have an "aha!" moment. This is a case in which the suspect was identified easily enough, and the initial suspicions confirmed through solid investigation and a mountain of evidence that developed from that investigation.
Here's another way to look at it--
Westerfield's guilt can be mathematically established way beyond a reasonable doubt. It's easy, really. Here's how:
Assign a numerical value to the chance that Westerfield, the anal neatnik, left the motorhome outside unlocked, unattended, and with the security system off. To be nice, say it's 1 in 3, even though we all know it's the kind of thing he would do maybe once every 500 visits. Now, what are the odds that Danielle Van Dam escaped, ran across the street unnoticed, and snuck into the motorhome at just the precise moment that it was unlocked, and unsecure. If you're one of the true believers here, like Dood, it's 25 percent, or 1 in 4. I say it's more like 1 in 200, but either one works.
Now, assign a numerical value to the chance that while she was in there, she somehow cut herself and bled. What are the odds of that? Again, I say 1 in 200, but go with Santee Dad's estimate, and use odds that are 1 in 3. Maybe there were a lot of sharp edges in there.
We'll assume that the hair in the motorhome, the fibers and the fingerprint were left behind on this visit, and so it does not increase the chance of Westerdoodie's guilt. We'll further assume, just to be nice, that the jacket was in the motorhome, or got contaminated from the blood dropped in the motorhome on this auspicious occasion.
Just with those facts, and way too generous odds, we're up to a 1 in 36 that there's an innocent explanation, pretty damn likely, and good enough for a conviction in any state in the union, but certainly not enough to sentence a man to death.
But that's not all. Because we have Danielle's hair in Westerfield's dryer lint and on his bedding. Now, we know the little scamp was in the house, but what are the odds she spread her hairs all over, they got on and in several different articles of laundry? Including on the bedspread DW just happened to take to the cleaners? Well, hell, go with 1 in 2.
But the dog, well, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to raise the odds. The chance that the Van Dams tracked that many dog hairs from their cookie visit into the Westerfield house is pretty small, even in Ms. Samantha's Santa Monica/Tom Hayden world. Give it 1 in 8, even though in the real world it's 1 in thousands.
However, there's the problem that the dog hairs don't positively identify the dog. That's simple to resolve. All the defense has to do to get rid of that 1 in 8 is come up with a dog, any dog, whose hair characteristics come close to the Van Dam dog's, and who has been in the house within the past few years. Do that, and the 1 in 8 is gone. Don't do it, and there's only one conclusion to be drawn: There is no such dog, and the only non-innocent explanation is transference, which, as we have examined, is unlikely.
Then, there's the carpet fibers that those darn Van Dams tracked into DW's house when they tried to force him to buy those disgusting Girl Scout cookies. The fibers then got in the laundry. Oh, hell, I'll give you a pass on those. I'm sure the Van Dams tracked those in on their shoes.
We're now up to 1 in 576, or slightly less than a 2/10 of 1 percent chance of innocence under very generous conditions. That's enough for capital punishment under all the official standards, although no one ever assigns a number to it. And, we haven't even gotten into all the lies, the porn, the odd behavior, the disappearing clothing, the cleaning and all the other things that point to Westerfield.
Using real world calculations, I put it more like 1 in 5000, not 1 in 576. But I gave overly high probabilities to prove that even doing so, the odds of there being an innocent explanation for Danielle's blood, the hair, fibers, and other evidence are miniscule.
The case has long been over, and it's incredible that there are so many arguing about so little. In fact, I think there is a far greater chance that Westerfield was framed than that there is an innocent explanation for the blood getting there. And the odds of that are pretty tiny, too.
If the defense can explain away the blood, I'll be happy to consider it. Call me when it happens, and I'm not holding my breath.
sw
Are you saying that since the Van Dam dog's hairs were in his motorhome and house that David Westerfield kidnapped Layla, too? Obviously I'm a bit thick, 'cause I don't see where you lay out how you arrived at your "1 in 8, even though in the real world it's 1 in thousands."