Kim asked if I would post this. SO, here ya go !
ALL: We all have to be patient cuz dusek can't explain why he picked this evidence and that evidence... he has to let the expert witnesses, one by one, explain their role in the evidence gathering..and each tech/expert is a step UP towards the conclusion/finger pointing. the prosecution has to let the experts tell the story..he'll summarize it for "the people" in his closing arguments. Dusek simply CAN'T tell the people why or how this piece of evidence fits in the crime, but he can bring forth witnesses who can.
MOMMYA: If it turns out to be DW's hair in Danielle's hand..how is feldman going to explain it away? If it was not DW's hair....wouldn't it have made sense for Dusek to exploit that little fact during opening statement? It seems to be by the fact that the evidence was not omitted from testimony...or hidden, that it has value for the prosecution. It does not make sense, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE that it could be her own hair.. on the other hand, seems that DW's hair is too short to grab and pull. That is ONE of the mysteries I CAN'T WAIT to get solved..
Kim, what's taking you so long? :-)