[Greg Weston]

So Lamont, If you snatch some kid off a street corner seen by no on, take him or her to your house kill him/her and then dump the body somewhere and are later arrested because blood and the kids fingerprints are found in your vehicle and home are you saying you should automatically be let go scot free because there was no evidence of you at the street corner? Is that what you are saying should happen??

>>>As for the child porn, has it actually been proven that the photos were of underage children?<<

If they were not or some kind of borderline stuff they would have never tried to blame the stuff on Neal. Some of it has been described as kids around the same age as Danielle.

[Lamont Cranston]

So Lamont, If you snatch some kid off a street corner seen by no on, take him or her to your house kill him/her and then dump the body somewhere and are later arrested because blood and the kids fingerprints are found in your vehicle and home are you saying you should automatically be let go scot free because there was no evidence of you at the street corner? Is that what you are saying should happen??

No strawman arguments, please. The nature of the case you bring up is quite different. In the VD case, the girl was an unsupervised neighbor who could have conceivably been in the mobile home either with or without the knowledge of Westerfield.

Also, the site of the kidnapping was very different sort of crime scene than a "street corner", which anyone has access to. Anyone who has studied the fundamentals of criminology knows that all crime scenes are not the same. In the VD case, the defendant would have had to enter a house filled with people and a dog, and abducted a child--all the while not being beeing seen or making noise (which the child or dog could have easily done as well.