[Freedom2specul8]

Welcome! Are you a new member in general or did you join cuz of the westerfield trial threads?

WRT: the jacket and why didn't he burn it..That very thing crossed my mind too... Why didn't he just burn the green jacket or get rid of it. So we have to ask, did he know the blood was on there before he took it to the cleaner? Maybe he thuoght it was his own blood, from when he scratched up his arms??

[John Jamieson]

Has it ever been scientifically established that either of the spots is really blood. It does have Danielle's DNA in it, but they could be many things besides blood. The presumptive test for blood is very loose, it reacts to rust and many other things.

[Jaded]

Some of it was HIS OWN blood. Actually, they biggest spot was his own blood. Maybe he killed him too.

[Stiv]

Welcome! Are you a new member in general or did you join cuz of the westerfield trial threads?

WRT: the jacket and why didn't he burn it..That very thing crossed my mind too... Why didn't he just burn the green jacket or get rid of it. So we have to ask, did he know the blood was on there before he took it to the cleaner? Maybe he thuoght it was his own blood, from when he scratched up his arms??Hi "Kim4VRWC's":

Thank you for asking. I joined b/c of the Westerfield debate/discussion, mainly because Court TV was driving me mad. I find the input you and many others here provide provacative and informative. So that's why I'm here.

You can see my previous posts about the "thought it was his own blood" theory, but the "did he know the blood was on there?" question is a good one. My argument was based on the prosecution's assumption that he took it to the dry cleaner BECAUSE he wanted to clean the blood BECAUSE OF the source -- i.e., he KNEW there was blood on it.. If he took it merely to clean a stain of his own blood, then his actions are innocous at best.

I appreciate your insight because it helps balance out this board.

Stiv