It would seem to me that living two or three houses down from someone, the wind alone would transfer fibers. I am sure that every time I walk outside, I get fibers from my neighbors, and they get mine. Fibers, hair, what have you.
Further, neighborhood children play in, around, on top of, underneath anything and every thing they can. They are, by nature, curious little creatures and if they thought they could get into a motor home parked on the street and play around a little - well what an adventure that would be!
With the life style the van Dams lead, why would any one just assume that this child was kidnapped and murdered simply on the whim of Westerfield THAT night - evidently the first night he'd actually interacted with them in any meaningful fashion? With this life style, they would have had strangers running in and out of their house all the time. It could have been someone from as long ago as 6 months prior who had partied with them. There is no evidence that Westerfield was ever in their house, correct? Perhaps the little girl wandered outside and some previous 'party attendee' grabbed her. Maybe someone who had wanted to be included in the party that night, but wasn't and was angry about it.
Brenda van Dam wore an orange sweater to court one day this week. Every one sitting around her and walking behind her probably now has orange fibers on their clothing.
These are just a couple of thoughts. So many things about this trial trouble me.
It just seems to me that too many people assume that simply because a person is arrested they are, therefore, guilty. God forbid that we have to prove our innocence in courts. It is the prosecution's job to prove guilt. In my opinion, this prosecution has definitely not proven guilt.
And trouble us all.
It is called MOB PSYCHOLOGY.
When Danielle disappeared, it caught the attention of the nation. WHY? Because it was an attractive blonde-haired blue-eyed white girl with parents that had a decent amount of money.
THe news jumped on it because it would sell newspapers, TV news, (I.e. Advertising money).
The local DA jumped on it because he is in a bid to win RE-election and he needed something BIG to get the voters to pick him. The opportunity was there (the girl was gone). The Van Dam's had hired a PR team right away and had taken over the Laura Recovery Center , put their own people in it (including their retired LEO friend Diane Halfman), and renamed it the Danielle Recovery Center.
SO the DA needed a PERP that he could charge, arrest, and CONVICT. The police were directed by the mother to a likely PERP , and from then on seemed to lose interest in other suspects, and concentrate on DW. Then they concentrated on FINDING PROOF (whether it was really there or not) that he did it.
The News media helped out by exxagerrating and outright LYING about events/times/statements and plastering them all over the MAGS/NEWSPAPERS/TV.
They got practically every MOTHER to swallow every word about DW because he had some PORN. Take a MOM with children, mention a MAN with PORN and the MOM will ACT LIKE a MOTHERBEAR protecting her CUBS. CLAW AWAY and KILL HIM.
It is an understandable EMOTION.
However, it has nothing to do with this.
BUT the DA, the MEDIA want it to have everthing to do with THIS CASE, because the EMOTION will SELL,SELL,SELL. The TRUTH won't.
I totally agree with this. A few threads back I even posted how my son had gone to play in a neighborhood kid's neighbor's MH, thus relating how it was possible. The poster who responded in the negative to me was, yes it possible, but it is not probable. It just seems to me that too many people assume that simply because a person is arrested they are, therefore, guilty.
When they were doing jury selection, many potential jurors were excused because they felt DW WAS guilty because he had been arrested.
This shakey evidence is the prosecutors entire case.
They have not placed DW at the crime scene, nor have they presented where the actual crime took place. Nor have they placed DW at the dump site.
In my opinion, they have not, so far, established guilt which is the burden of the DA.
You simply can not convict a person of murder by the mere presence of minicule amounts of fibre, of which the source cannot be established.
Even the small amount of the blood DNA can be explained away.
Remember that Brenda finally admitted she danced with DW that night and a witness stated they were in fact 'dirty dancing'. Is it not possible the trace blood DNA could have been transferred from her, at that time? These are the kind of questions that should have been investigated and in fact MUST still be considered.
Could'nt the blood DNA be that of Brenda VD instead of Danielle's, seems like Mother/Daughter DNA would match. How extensive was the blood spot? was it just a trace amount that could have been a smudge, or was it a drop of blood. These kinds of things are unknown, at least from what I have been able to determine, from these posts.