I have been through this before and have explained countless times. I started with the presumption of innocence. At few days ago I had no clue if he was guilty or not. I looked at the physical evidence and I found it overwhelmingly sufficient to prove Westerfield is guilty. Since then I am looking for evidence that might change that perception. Also, since then the more I look the more physical evidence I become aware of instead of evidence that exonerates him.
So, far I haven't been presented any evidence to change my opinion which was formed based on the hard physical facts except for speculation. Speculation is by definition and direction to a jury in CA not a basis on which to form reasonable doubt. Speculation includes Danielle was ever in the RV other than the day she was abducted. Speculation includes the blood on the jacket got there when she visited for selling cookies. Speculation includes the fibers rubbed off from the investigators. No evidence other than inuendo regarding these speculations has been put forward by the defense to my knowledge.
So, currently I do not presume Westerfield's innocence because I have seen enough evidence to believe with moral certainity that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, hey I could still change that opinion based on the remaining testimony, closing arguments or facts that a kind freeper here may provide.
What you should do is to weight all -- the whole -- of the testimony and facts presented, your own experience and wisdoms, under an assertive filter of presumed innocence, so as to determine if the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a resonable doubt.
Consider the awesome responsibilty you, as a juror, might have.