Replies

I think the Defense closing arument needs to be honest - "Ladies and gentlemen - we cannot tell you exaxtly how little Danielle's blood and fingerprints got into the MH - we just do not know that answer - what we can tell you though - without hesitation - definitively - is that those things did not come to be there because of anything DW did to Danielle in there. He did not kidnap her - he did not kill her - and to Mr W's knowledge - Little Danielle has not been in his MH."...you get the drift.

Has the defense rested? Why didn't the defense explain how dw got her blood hair etc on his jacket and in the MH..and the fibers/hair everywhere? Could it be that he and the prosecution will answer our puzzling questions during closing?

The defense has not rested, yet. As for the fiber evidence, the prosecutor has not identified the source for it. If they can't, a person could reasonably conclude that the fiber is quite common. As for the Danielle's blood on DW's jacket, it could have be deposited there while Danielle was selling the GS cookies. After all, wasn't there testimony about her being scratched by the dog prior to that visit and some mention that Danielle had problems with bloody noses?

Motive allegations have been negated effectively. The porno connection has been refuted. No evidence of DW having been in the VD house; prosecution witnesses that lied at seemingly every turn, the prosecutor not delivering on his promises made during opening arguments, bug evidence virtually eliminates DW, DW was drunk, Barb and Damon apparently were up in the master bedroom for a longer period of time than claimed (per Denise Kemal), Damon got rid of his blue car (fibers?), changing the carpet and painting in Danielle's BR, cleaning the MB carpet before the SDPD could inspect for evidence, partiers lawyering-up, a SDPD that can't seem to write a report that really reflects what witnesses stated, the ignoring of evidence other than that which might implicate DW, and on and on.

As for the prosecution offering explanations during closing, keep in mind that opening and closing arguments are NOT EVIDENCE.

Feldman delivered on all his promises and Dusek delivered on virtually none of his, so who should a reasonable person believe?

Why didn't the defense explain how dw got her blood hair etc on his jacket and in the MH..and the fibers/hair everywhere?

Um, this is kind of immaterial, in light of some stuff we now know:

Stuff We Now Know

by Henrietta. Age 8.

We know, based on cell phone records, that his phone was never "handed" to a cell in the Dehesa Rd.

We know, based on testimony of the police, that DW was under surveillance from before midnight on Monday the 4th of Feb, and that police attached (unbeknownst to him) a GPS tracker to his vehicle. Said GPS tracker shows he went nowhere near the Dehesa Rd. area during this time.

So he was never in the area to be able to dump the body.

I think that pretty much wraps it up, or did I miss something, here? Do you think he had help with the crime from some undiscovered accomplice, Kim?

Besides, the relevant question here is why the prosecution was unable to put the defendant at the place the body was dumped during the relevant time period. They have the burden of proof, and IMO have not met it, not even close.