1. In the photo that AJ took, I don't think it is clear that there are front seats present. The photo is very dark, the doors are open, and the things you are seeing as 'seats' or 'headrests' could very well be something in the background, not inside the truck, or even reflections of something else in the hangar. After all, AJ stated that when he first saw the truck, the carpet (or did he say floor?) and seats were removed. So if he then took a photograph a day later and the seats were suddenly intact, that would be ridiculous.
2. Where in the opening remarks does it say "opening statements the prosecutor said there was "blood all over the interior."" I read and heard in the opening statement, "Further forensic examination found the blood DNA of Tim Bosma on the inside of the truck in various areas, including the inside rear passenger door; rear passenger armrest; around the glove box; and front passenger cup holder (front or rear?)."
3. Where is it stated that there should have been "huge amounts of blood leaking down through the floor from a person who has been mortally wounded and apparently died there some 30 or so hours earlier. There should be some indications of up to 5 liters or more of blood somewhere if he bled out in the vehicle ( and dripped through the chassis)"; what I read and heard in the opening statement was, "Tim Bosma’s blood was also found in various areas on the undercarriage of the truck." It did not specify quantities. All they need is a few drops, enough to test positive as a match to TB.
They don't require gallons of blood to be present to prove that this happened, nor at whose hands.
Just as a note, the judge did indicate during his opening remarks that circumstantial evidence and direct evidence can be relied upon equally, with neither being considered better than the other, with all of the evidence to be treated all together as a whole, using the jurors' common sense, once all of the evidence has been submitted.
