[luvbach1]

How do they refute the blood evidence and the handprint in the motor home? Not to mention the fiber evidence. Pointing out inconsequential procedural errors by the lab technicians doesn't negate the conclusions to me. I don't the jury will be persuaded to disregard them either. Much of the prosecution's case is circumstantial, that's true, but the physical evidence is also damning.This is not the OJ jury.I could be wrong; that's why they'll have to finish the trial.

[BunnySlippers]

Much of the prosecution's case is circumstantial, that's true, but the physical evidence is also damning.

Most attorneys say that a circumstantial case is stronger. An eyewitness can be impeached by their eyesite, their motivation and their ability to see in certain conditions. Circumstantial cases are very much okay.

As we speak, Michael Skakel (the Kennedy cousin) is sitting in jail on a circumstantial case 27 years old ... and NO DNA evidence.

[Jaded]

Apparently there is more to the relationship between DW and BvD. Feldman alluded to it in his opening. This would certainly change the shape of things. Doncha think?

[AppyPappy]

How do they refute the blood evidence and the handprint in the motor home?

By putting reasonable doubt into the jury's head. You can only do that by refuting the evidence. All Westerfield has to say is "I have no idea how it got there" and the jury will weigh that.