no, as I stated before, I would have found him guilty by the facts of the case,and the large amounts of forensic evidence. not my feelings towards the defendent, or the witnesses.
As far as DW goes, if he is PROVEN guilty, then he should fry - but I don't see a lot of proof here, just a small amount of circumstantial evidence and a very small amount of what is said to be DNA evidence. one hair and 2 "spots" is not alot to convince me. I want to see motive, I want to see proof of how the crime was committed and supporting evidence.
You know, the defense is putting on a compelling case...
Honestly, we don't get much on this case here in NY....so I have to go by Fresno's threads....which seem to be current...
One hair, and 2 spots of blood can be compelling, but if the child had been in his home before, it can be explained away...afterall the child was a neighbor...The hair could have come in on the bottom of his shoe.....everything can be accounted for...
In other words, like any good person seeking justice, you do not want to offer a neighbor chosen at random as a sacrifice to appease whatever false gods this hang-him-high mob worships.