Interesting the Prosecution has not given it's theory how DW is supposed to have entered the house, kidnapped Danielle and disposed of the body? Didn't they "promise" in opening statements they would do just that?
If all we can do is focus on the possibility that DW became sexually aroused by the porno and put on his invisible cloak to do the dastardly deed, then we are in a rut here. Is the Prosecution going to "deliver" on its promise?
Court TV interviewed a shrink who said if DW had viewed the porno, he would have satisfied his urges (paraphrasing here) and would not have gone after Danielle...Was she saying that Porno has it's up side? We'll never know, she was cut off.
sw
They will tie it all together in closing statements. Dominic Dunne (I'll try to catch his show on Wed. nights) said the closing in the Skakel trial was brilliant.
The prosecution presented the evidence at trial, but nothing really stood out as the actual testimony was given. Then at closing the prosecutor wove the evidence together to tell the story. That is what I am anticipating here. They may or may not pull it off here as the team did in the other case.
(Of course, I think there are several items of evidence in this case that already stand out, but the gist is the pulling together that I'm getting at)