Replies

It't not even because they're swingers that makes them fair game. It's the fact that because of their lifestyle, other people were in and out of their house THE NIGHT Danielle disappeared. And there were unidentified handprints. I don't think DW is any paragon of virtue--in fact, it has looked to me like his life has been spiraling out of control for some time. While I don't like the Van Dam's lifestyle, I wouldn't think it worthy of note in this trial but for the FACT that it created traffic throughout their house. It's not the lifestyle; it's the unexplained people. I'm not at all certain that DW is innocent, but these people with access to the house the night Danielle went missing creates reasonable doubt to me.

Let me guess, the cops "planted" the blood on his jacket right? And the hair too? Or was it the real murdered who set him up?

How can you ignore this evidence?

I wasn't trying to argue the case. Just making an observation about a statement that said that the fact that the parents were swingers is automatic reasonable doubt. That in and of itself is just one fact of many, which can only be looked at in their entirety before it can be determined whether there is reasonable doubt.

I have my opinions about this specific case, but since I'm not a member of the jury, I will keep them to myself.