[VRWC_minion]

Then you find Westerfield guilty of having a motorhome that neighborhood kids have entered. That is not murder. Not even close.

I don't find it credible to explain the physical evidence in the RV. I also have no evidence that children ever played there.

[bvw]

Well, that is unreasonable. You see, the reasonable -- by presumption of innocence, as applied in trials in California -- view is that as there was access and neighborhood kids did roam freely, that would explain the hairs, and even the "blood". As a juror in California you are required to accept the reasonable explaination that exonerates.

Further you have on these threads heard from mothers of children and such who have stated that kids do play in RV's parked in the neighborhood. An RV is like a "attractive nuisance" in that way.

To ignore common sense in order to arrive at guilt is not presumption of innocence. And that is what you are doing.