[ItsOurTimeNow]

Ass-clown,

My post was in reply to marajade's post:

"They had blood DNA evidence... That isn't enough?"

My illustration was that, no, that isn't enough.

Reading comprehension fails you, I see.

[BoomerBob]

Your analogy of a cousin in your car is poor. There would be a legitimate reason for the cousin to be in your car. In the case at hand, there was no legitimate reason for Danielle's blood to be in the motor home or on DW's jacket. Context is everything.

[Illbay]

Sorry, YourTimeIsPast, the game's over. Stop continuing to twist facts to suit your latest fever-dream. You and all your ilk have continually tried to deal with the evidence in PIECE-MEAL fashion.

It doesn't work like that. No single bit of evidence convicted this monster. It was everything taken together, which so overwhelmed the defense team--who apparently are mental midgets compared to the, *ahem*, geniuses who make up the pro-Westerfield faction on FR--that they simply couldn't answer it all. They couldn't explain it away, try as they might.

And you must remember: They were unable to pull the same snow job as you people were on FR, because the evidence was THERE in front of the jury.

They had it all. Something you'll NEVER have.

Not that this will stop you from your ongoing delusion.