[John Jamieson]

This morning:

The van Dams said they had no knowledge of any deal, surely they would have have been asked for their input.

Brenda first said she wanted to know "why" he did it and then changed her mind to "how" did he do it. Duh!

The books about this case should be coming soon, I can't wait.

I studied the bug guys testimony for many hours and understand their math and logic. It is not reasonable to ignore them. There are just 2 possibilities:

1. DW is innocent.
2. He had help.

Either way, Damielle's killer(s) are still out there.

[John Jamieson]

Sorry for the typo: "Danielle"

[VRWC_minion]

There are just 2 possibilities:

Logically there is at least 3.

[Valpal1]

If you're looking for an accomplice, may I recommend his ex BIL "Cletus" to you to fill the position.

You are wrong about the accuracy of the bugs. Anomalies are a dime a dozen in the natural world and entymologists have not studied every environmental factor possible, nor is it possible to "know" every invironmental factor to draw the window of possibility so tight as to exclude DW as the dumper.

Not one of the bug-sperts testified beyond "likely" and "unlikely" time frames. That was weak in comparison to the blood, hair, print that positively place the victim in DW's property, for which there was no adequate refutation.

"Might have" snuck in and played there 4-12 moths previously, without witnesses or other evidence isn't a refutation, it is just a pathetic, desperate grasp at straw.

The 3rd possiblity is that the Forensic Entymologists have a lot more studies to do, to figure out what they missed.

[El Sordo]

It isn't outside the realm of possibility that Forensic Entymology is about to learn something new regarding the science behind their discipline.

I'd expect Haskell and the rest to be spending quite a bit of time in drier climates this next February.