Replies

The jury instructions are (paraphrase): when confronting circumstantial evidence if there is one or more reasonable interpretation which leads to guilt or one or more which leads to not guilty you MUST (*NOT* may, might, can, or could) accept the interpretation which finds the defendant NOT GUILTY. MUST. The defense offered REASONABLE doubt well within what was "needed" here where the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution.

The prosecution said: here's a few specs (improperly photographed & never typed to see if it was blood) which contain van dam DNA, oh and here's a fibre that could maybe be from carpet that DVD encountered (but never mind that Ninja Dave was visited twice by three members of the VD household which could REASONABLY explain cross contamination) and there's a fingerprint (so she was in the motorhome but our trained dogs never alerted on the motorhome because they're obviously useless, right?). Here's our expert on bugs (but wait, don't listen to him when he reveals another hole in this charade we're putting on to stir your pre-disposition to convict "child killers" and "child rapists"--afterall we're only putting him on as a scientific expert when it helps, this is junk science if it helps Ninja Dave).

Explain to me again how we "case not proved" Freepers can't think straight?