[cyncooper]

Why would the detective ask him if he had stopped by a dry cleaners on the way home from the desert (for example)? The point is DW did not volunteer the info. Though it is reasonable to expect people to forget details when answering questions. I think the questioning shows how weak the defense case is. Shows how perceptions can differ.

As I prepare this I see that DW made a big point to say how the kids were running all over. I think some more forensic evidence was found upstairs that we will be hearing about.

[Rheo]

I've had a problem w/BVD stating those kids stood by her side in that house, except for the 3 min at pool, while she carried on a lenghthy conversation with him...including adult BBQ talk and going to bars...I can see the kids running around that house more so than standing there by her side......will be interesting to see if the brothers prints and DNA are upstairs also.

[Valpal1]

If the two children were indeed running all over the house, I would expect to find the prints of both children at various places in the home. If only Danielle's prints are found then he is a liar. If no prints at all were found, then he is one fine housekeeper and probably is the neat freak described. I'm curious about the hair. Was any found on his vacuum cleaner brush head and in the bag (did they look?). If the children were bouncing all over the house, one would expect shed hair in the vacuum cleaner to be more likely than in the dryer lint trap. I am forever cutting the wound hairs of my daughters and self from the vacuum brush.

[Jaded]

On the other hand, maybe it's a backhanded reference to how unsupervised they are. How do you know he didn't say "She doesn't even watch her kids in other people's homes. They were running wild everywhere, inside, outside, upstairs, jumping on furniture." ? Does that make a difference? Sounds like my nephews.