[bvw]

Your biggest problem is that you are assuming guilt and insisting that innoncence be proven. Switch the horses in midstream if you can, and you'll perceive things better.

[VRWC_minion]

Your biggest problem is that you are assuming guilt and insisting that innoncence be proven. Switch the horses in midstream if you can, and you'll perceive things better

I know it may look like that to you because I am asking the defense to prove something to me but that request is secondary.

I didn't start assuming anything. I formed my opinion that Danielle was in the RV just prior to her death based on the evidence presented from reading these threads for the first time yesterday. Since then I ahve asked loads of questions and have gotten more informaton about physical evidence that further connects Westerfield. From the camp that believes he is innocenct I mostly got diversions and alternate theories with no basis in facts.

With that opinion based on the evidence, I have conluded that Danielle was in the RV before she was killed. Unless the defense can provide a reasonable rebuttle then I will continue my opinion.

Here is an example: I am shown a movie of murder in process. Someone shoots another. I have been given evidence that a murder took place. Unless I am given some alternate explanation of the movie then I am only left with my original conclusion.