Replies

IF Danielle would have been in the MH between 02/01/02 and 02/03/02, the dogs should have detected that. They didn't

This was part of testimony ? An expert opined this ? What exactly did he say because I am surprised anyone would claim to prove a negative.

Attn: VD Thread followers...we are in need of volunteers, who have read the numerous transcripts..and are willing to bring this "NEWBIE" up to speed....

Any volunteers???

No?

OK then....time for you alone to read up...or move along.....

What exactly did he say because I am surprised anyone would claim to prove a negative. I understand and can accept your argument. It is the same argument used to prove DW was not in the Van Dam home.

There is no evidence there, and the dogs did not track his scent into their home.

One has to use their own judgment, ultimately, to decide whether this is proof.

I would state to you that there could be evidence of a person entering a house, and dogs tracking their scent, and they could have never been in it. Yet, you would accept those things as ABSOLUTE PROOF. Am I right?

I can show you have Danielle's HAIR and DNA got in the MH without her ever entering. But they are being used as PROOF.

At some point you have to accept a negative as proof. And we could argue this till hell freezes over.

The main point is whether there is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Danielle was in the MH on/after 02/01/02, and was taken from there and killed by the operator of the MH, which would be DW.

> IF Danielle would have been in the MH between 02/01/02 and 02/03/02, the dogs should have detected that. They didn't

This was part of testimony ? An expert opined this ? What exactly did he say because I am surprised anyone would claim to prove a negative.

If the dogs could find a body, alive or dead, why would you use dogs (or testify about using them) ?

My plecostomus didn't detect Danielle's body, and I wasn't called to testify ...