Replies

Many of us posting here have shared various experiences we have had as 7 Y.O. children (or so), that included playing in neighbor's boats, trailers, garages and even cars. Others, have shared experiences, they have had with neighbor children playing in their RV's. So frankly, minion, it's difficult, for me, to understand why it "strains reason" in your particular case.

My kids would have left more than two prints in one spot. The likelihood that my kid leaves a few hairs is probable but that one of them ends up in a sink trap is next to nil assuming he was only there a short time. Add to that the odd's my kid was bleeding at the same time all add up to straining the possibilites.

Finally the lack of testimony that even one kid played there is very troubling. As for your implication that someone tried to remove Danielle's hair from the MH, that IMO, does tend to strain reason. There was hair, of all types, found throughout the MH and much of it was varying shades of blond.

If you can explain how you hypothesize, that DW selectively found, identified and disposed of only Danielle's hair, I would be very interested in hearing your theory.

He didn't Danielles hair was there.

In # 825 you stated: "The fact that only one hair was found implies to me that many more hairs were initially present which either got vaccumed up, picked up or sent out as gray/black water. It also implies that someone attempted to remove them."

In #927, I responded: " As for your implication that someone tried to remove Danielle's hair from the MH, that IMO, does tend to strain reason. There was hair, of all types, found throughout the MH and much of it was varying shades of blond".

And then in #934, you stated "He didn't Danielles hair was there."

Now, either you are contradicting yourself, misunderstood my response, or I'm just not seeing your point. In any case, I'm having difficulty making sense what you are trying to communicate here.

As to your #934 comment: "My kids would have left more than two prints in one spot.

I'm not sure what you are implying, in this case, either. If it's as some have suggested, that DW wiped the MH of prints, that, IMO, has been pretty well disproved by court testimony. There were many other prints in the MH and DW could not have selectively wiped only Danielle's prints away (except for the one). Also, consider that none of the "pizza gang" left a single clear print at the VD's, after their little pizza party, showing that usable prints are not always left at a scene. If it's something else you had in mind, please give me more information to go on. TIA