[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.

[VRWC_minion]

Read my prior threads on my reasons for believing she did not play there.

There is no evidence presented that any child ever played in this RV.

Based on the evidence presented there is only fingerprints, blood like substance and hair root in RV. There is none, zilch, nada evidence of any child let alone Danielle ever being in the RV to play.

[VRWC_minion]

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

I started with a presumption of innocence as of three days ago and I am open to change my mind when additional evidence is presented. As of now, my presumption is leaning towards guilty therefore my current opinion is guilty.

I am uncomfortable with the bug guys stuff and unless I were to get some rebuttle on that I would insure that my jury were hung.