[MizSterious]

Amore, I have to disagree about the amount of hair to drop. He hasn't a lot on top of his head, but enough on the sides to drop. Beyond that, there is the beard (men with beards often run their fingers through them, and hairs do drop), the hair on his arms, legs, etc.--men are hairy beasts. He should have dropped some hairs if he was hiding in the closet for--what? 1 1/2 hours?--unless he could stand perfectly still without moving all that time. I don't believe that's possible, unless he's had ninja training.

[Politicalmom]

Also, skin flakes, hair, and clothing fibers SHOULD have rubbed off in the process of carrying a child out of the house.

[Amore]

Good point on the hair. And I agree that if he was supposedly hiding in the closet for hours, there should be something. But unless it's actually inconsistent with the prosecutions' evidence, I still hold to the theory that he was in and out quickly. As I said, I read true crime books, I watch the true crimes shows, fascinated by forensics. But I'm really not interested by my thoughts or indeed any layman's thoughts on this issue.

While I personally am not inclined to conclude that a lack of evidence = innocence, this is something I would definitely like to hear from an expert. Now, whether I will is another thing. It's hard to prove a negative. I don't think the state would present such an expert. OTOH, maybe the defense has an expert who will say no evidence = innocence, and both sides could get into the issue there. But if neither side presents an expert, I'm going with my common sense which tells ME that it would be quite possible (not saying likely, just possible) that he can get in and out without leaving any DNA. (And don't anybody give me any BURP arguments either, I'm talking about possibilities on this evidence, not the burden of proof as it regards the entire trial.)