[bvw]

Once again, you are acting from a presumption of guilt. You are requiring the defense to disprove an assumption of guilt that you have made based on evidence in the RV. That is you presume that the only way the evidence got into the RV was by some act undeniably and directly associated with murder.

In order to do that you must ignore the common sense explanation that Danielle played in the RV at some time or times unknown.

Unfair, and a violation of oath if you were a juror.

[VRWC_minion]

Once again, you are acting from a presumption of guilt.

Wrong. I'm not a juror but even a juror will go through same process even if they are told they don't. We all form intial opinions.

Maybe I can diagram it for you

1. No opinion + evidence = initial opinion (The prosecution presents its case)

2. Initial opinion - alternate explanations = final opinion.(Defense anwers)

I am at stage 1 because the defense is still presenting. So far what the defense has presented under "alternate explanations" is zilch in my mind. The trial isn't over but I don't expect to hear from a child or parent regarding playing there. Even if I did, I doubt that would be enough to explain the physical evidence in the RV but it would certainly help.