[Henrietta]

Really, the guilt or innocence of the VD's is immaterial. The only material issue is did DW did it, he's the one on trial. I don't think he did.

I'm having an ever-harder time sympathizing with those who think he did, because it just seems like they have closed their minds to any evidence that would tend to be exculpatory. Particularly in light of the bug guy's evidence, I'm having a hard time understanding why some still think that DW did it. I had serious doubts about this case, but the bug guy pretty much put those to rest with his testimony.

I don't know who did it. I just know it wasn't DW.

[oremus]

Sheer human pride would cause those types to not abandon their position.

As for me, I have had my hunches, but I have kept an open mind all the while waiting for the evidence before making any real decision. The evidence now points heavily toward innocence. Some just won't admit it because they won't admit that maybe they are wrong.

I do know there is at least one such person who has not been around too much since the bug evidence came out... doubts maybe?

[John Jamieson]

Oh, but some of the doubt that DW did it, comes from a belief in a lot of us that the van Dams "might" have done it. That's very important to the case.

For a long time, I tryed to keep seperate the possibilty that DW might be guilty, and concentrate on just the narrow issue of, has the state proved his guilt. They never came close. Now I'm ready to try the van Dams, because I feel that once the investigation centers on them, the truth will out, inspite of the rebuilt house, burnedup body, missing blue van, etc.