[cyncooper]

I don't believe DW gave an explanation. Do know of one?

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.

[Henrietta]

The fact of the evidence shows she was in the MH and his MB.

Yes, the physical evidence does show that, at some point, she was in the MH. (the blood). Fiber evidence and the defendant's own testimony indicate that she was in the house at some point. However (and here's what you don't seem to "get") she was not in either place during the time period at issue, based on the lack of "hits" from the search dogs. If she wasn't in the MH or in the house or in the SUV, how do you think DW got her body and dumped it out on Dehesa Rd?

Please explain; enquiring minds want to know!

[oremus]

He didn't give an explanation but he said he didn't do it. How could he know whether or not Danielle wandered into the motor home or not at some time??? How can you be 100% sure she didn't???

The "blood" on the jacket - well we've already discussed that, and they said it *might* be blood. It could be drool, too. And again, she was in his home and the jacket could have been draped on a chair...

Explain to me how he could drive a dead body around in the MH and the dogs didn't get the least bit excited?