You might try computing the odds for this crime happening at the house..if YOU took DW out of the picture...just for kicks.
I am hoping the Jury will look at the whole picture, and understand that he couldn't have possibly been in the house to snatch Danielle.
Gut feelings and instinct say he didn't do it. These same feelings say the odds of him being convicted with just the blood evidence are there. Mostly because we have heard from people like you, who won't listen to reason.
This does not mean I think the man is guilty, I don't. But the jury doesn't have the advantage of knowing some of the things we do, and the fact that there is supposed to be a GAG order, but CTV and talk shows STILL broadcast that the man is guilty and misrepresent the facts..is deeply troubling.
Even with you, Defiant..you pronounce him guilty, and the trial isn't even over? It's a reverse OJ situation. They had all the evidence that he was guilty, but we knew they wouldn't convict a "brother". There was blood, alot of blood...but the dried up glove didn't fit..so they must acquit?! The trial was a farce.
You don't want to consider the other evidence, or the man's character references...You don't want to consider that he couldn't be the killer...it's just the question of blood and fibers. BUT I say.."The bugs don't fit..you must acquit"...trace blood evidence be damned.
You had him convicted from the get-go...you can't get past this. Why bother with a trial?
You asked..:~)
sw