The point was that a single small drop of blood doesn't prove a thing, and children do often bleed from small cuts.
The child could have easily spent a few moments, unattended and unnoticed, in the motor home on some occasion, and dropped a bit of blood.
I suppose you have an explanation for the fact that the dogs did not hit on Danielle being in the MH, but did hit on her being in the home (ie, Feb 1st)? Obviously he would have had to transport her dead body in it in his winding travels...
I don't spend alot of time speculating. The fact of the evidence shows she was in the MH and his MB.
Regarding the one drop of blood-----don't forget the jacket. That's two!
I am not obliged to explain how he did it. I'm not on the jury to have to frame my opinion within a framework of "reasonable doubt", but I think the prosecution has met its burden.