[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.)

[RnMomof7]

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.

They have said the man perspired alot under questioning..would not he have also perspired alot under the stress of hiding in a closet? Seems there should be some DNA in that closet