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.
BANG, oh you just shot yourself in the other foot.
You can't see what you just said, can you? You don't see the contradiction to you statements of how fair you are being? Maybe logic just isn't your field. I am not trying to be personal, please, I just think you can't see how your statement proves what others are saying to you.