No one who has examined and understood the facts of this case could say that with any enthusiasm. This is not a "DNA case" like so many one hears about.
This case shows the limitations of DNA analysis. It can not answer all the questions.
The "DNA" was in fact underwhelming and nearly valueless in proving the case here. It was used only for identification. It simply identified in the defendant's motor home 1 hair and 2 blood stains as belonging to Danielle.
Well, that certainly sounds incriminating. But Defense did not even contest these identifications, because simple identification was insufficient here. To prove a crime occurred on Feb. 2-3-4, we need to know HOW AND WHEN the blood or trace evidence was deposited here:
(1) The single DNA-identified "Danielle" hair floated in with trace evidence from many others, including the victim's mother, brothers, and the van Dam family dog. Obviously the suspect was not trying to kidnap the dog. Trace came in by simple Locard transfer, from prior innocent contact.
(2) The 2 blood samples were poorly handled, not photographed as they were found. The jury never saw the blood stain on the jacket or the speck on the carpet. All they saw was holes! They never saw the primary evidence in the case. The stains were not photographed, so no spatter analysis could be done. No one could analyze HOW the blood had been deposited. DNA cannot answer questions like that.
(3) The 'incriminating' DNA blood samples (IF there was no lab error) belonged only to the victim, not the perpetrator. This is rarely the case. No trace of the victim was found on his person, and no trace of him was found on the victim or in her home. This is also rarely the case.
(4) The DNA did not provide direct evidence. It did not link the person Westerfield to the person of the victim, as in well-known rape cases. The evidence, as everyone knows, was on his possessions -- a jacket found at the dry cleaners and a carpet in the motor home. He did not have to be IN the jacket or IN the motor home when the blood got there. How & when did it get there?
(5) The age of the blood sample(s) was unknown. Bloodstains found could have been over a year old. This is an important limitation: that "DNA" cannot tell time. The blood was unable to tell whether or not it was deposited on Feb. 2-3-4 or at some other time.
Defense provided good evidence that the children may have visited the motor home earlier, when it was parked, unlocked, in the neighborhood. More innocent prior contact was possible here.
(6) The DNA-identified blood spots, without spatter analysis, could not answer the "when" and "how" of their own appearance. Were they part of a crime, or not? No one knows for sure.
(7) The DA's interpretation of the crime of a kidnap-murder, primarily based on his interpretation of 2 spots of blood evidence in a suspect's vehicle, was in conflict with other major facts:
(8) There was NO DNA from the Defendant in the victim's home (crime scene #1) and NO DNA from the Defendant on the victim's body or at the Dehesa recovery site (crime scene #2).
The vehicle was only an alleged crime scene, but the judge allowed jurors a walk-through. Some came out in tears, thoroughly spooked. However, the jurors were not allowed to view the actual crime scenes: the 2-story home from which she was taken or the site where her body was found.
(9) The fact that Westerfield was never at Dehesa was reinforced by forensic entomology (FE). This science is more powerful than DNA in some ways. DNA can only tell "who," but Forensic Entomology is able to pinpoint "when," and even "where" in some cases.
(10) If the jury had followed the rules for weighing circumstantial evidence, they should have rejected the blood evidence as insufficient. There was major reasonable doubt here.
(This is not the "street view" or TV view of things, but the "courtroom view.")
The DNA in this case was unable to prove that a crime had occurred.
Some have called the excessive focus on DNA among jurors the "CSI effect." This mindset is engendered by too much TV-forensics watching and not enough critical thinking.
Westerfield's Appeal Brief characterizes a balance, a stalemate, between the two opposing forensic sciences: forensic entomology (FE) at a crime scene, versus "DNA," 2 blood stains in a vehicle.
This 50-50 balance has odds no better than a coin toss! This is the picture of an acquittal. It does not represent the overwhelming proof needed to tip the scales toward a conviction of guilt in a death-penalty crime of kidnap-murder.
The DA failed to meet his burden of proof in this case, and this lack of rigorous proof required an acquittal from the Westerfield jurors.
However, a "tie-breaker" appeared in the form of highly prejudicial non-forensic evidence and other improper pressures on the jury. The DNA alone was insufficient to prove the case without that dubious help. And the prosecutors knew this from the beginning. ["A Brick on the Scales of Justice" - forthcoming Blog article.]
What we learn from this is that DNA is not, and cannot be, the magic answer to all life's mysteries.