Replies

What gets me is how does DW defend himself? Yes, he went to a bar on a Friday night with a friend, and went camping in his motorhome as was his custom on Saturday and Sunday. He is single, so who is to vouch for him? You have to wonder, how much of this evidence is circumstantial and how much is convincing? The only thing that could really convict him is DNA evidence from Danielle's fingernails or evidence of his DNA in Danielle's room since there is no eyewitness testimony. He has no alibi but who else does? I think what bothers some of us about this case is not that DW is not guilty but that he may not be guilty and that's what "beyond a reasonable doubt" is all about. We are all bothered by this case. Nevertheless, I'm not talking about an unreasonable doubt.

You are correct. First, let me say that the majority of us feel like you do. We want whoever did this, to be guilty beyond OUR reasonable doubt. If Westerfield did this, it will be glaring and he will FRY.

But you hit on the most troubling part of this whole picture. "How can DW prove his where-a-bouts"? Maybe he can. We don't have the trial yet. WE do know he was stuck in the sand, and the hounds were off and running with "she's buried in the sand, we'll never find her"....uggggh

But let's take a look at Damon. HE can't prove what he did between the time he claims he put the children to bed and the time Brenda and friends came back.

If this had been an ordinary family environment, none of what could have happened to Danielle in her own home would have EVER been given the time of day.

BUT....I don't think DW will get off IF he really did do it. OTOH, maybe Feldman and his team have already solved the mystery for us. Going to be a great trial!

Interestingly enough, at the PH, towards the end, Feldman said something about wanting to bring in testimony from alibi witnesses, but was not permitted to do so. Perhaps this trial is not a slam-dunk, after all? Does anyone else remember hearing this, or have a transcript handy?