Fingerprints are the evidence I have accepted that show that , at some time, Danielle had been in the MH.
The 'blood' and hair evidence are no proof at all. I can explain a scenario where her hair and 'DNA' (blood) could be in the MH and yet she never entered it.
Wanna know how ?
Danielle , according to the lack of a hit by tracking dogs, had not been in the MH for approximately 2 weeks before the dogs searched it.
My wife would tend to disagree. So in order to support your belief you must argue the evidence doesn't exist ? Can you do better ?
Quoting from myself:
"There was a reaction at the MH and defense has not denied that danielle was in the MH..so does it even matter? "After his testimony, the prosecution called Frazee's supervisor, Rosemary Redditt, a retired teacher and also a volunteer canine searcher. She said she was at the impound lot with Frazee and his dog Feb. 6. She said she witnessed the dog react to the storage compartment of the vehicle. She said the dog "turned around real fast," sat, looked at Frazee and barked. "
naturally, the defense attacked the credibility. "The defense has suggested that 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, who lived two doors away, might have sneaked into the motor home at some point while playing in the neighborhood, which might explain how the girl's blood, hair and fingerprints were found inside the vehicle. "
"Detective James Tomsovic, who testified earlier as a prosecution witness, said yesterday that he was at the police impound lot Feb. 6 and didn't see the dog react to the motor home. In a report, Tomsovic said the dog showed no reaction. Under cross-examination by prosecutor Jeff Dusek, Tomsovic acknowledged he arrived at the lot after Frazee and might have missed the dog's reaction. " "