TALE OF TWO LAWERS (Feldmand vs. Dusek) DEFEATED and DECIETFUL.(VD's SKATE FREE TO SWING AGAIN)

Yahoo ^ | August 22, 2002 | Yahoo

[FresnoDA]

TALE OF TWO LAWYERS......

DEFEATED and DECIETFUL

[Valpal1]

Where have all the posters gone......
long time posters....

Where have all the posters gone.....

[Freedom2specul8]

Are you following the other thread?

This is A VERY SAD day.....

[bvw]

My opinion of anyone sticking their finger in their pants and then in someone's mouth is one of disgust. But here it is a the memory and statements of a seven-year old child. That doesn't make it a fact. It's not considered reliable testimony. Yet you asked as if it was a fact that Westerfield did so.

[Freedom2specul8]

1. DW didn't have to bring it up.
2. The girl reported the incident to her mom
3. let's wait to hear her actual testimony (today?)
4. little girls do remember, I know that for a fact.
5. the mom remembers the event, she'l testify too

[UCANSEE2]

Ok where's the laundry room??

That is not the question. The question is why the police didn't take the dog bed into evidence? Answer: it wasn't there. Damon threw it in the trash, but I don't believe it was 'found' in the trash or anywhere else.

If I can verify this, I will let you know.

[cyncooper]

Following the Oregon City Case. It will be an ugly, but open and shut trial, probably claim insanity if its allowed in this state.

Thanks for the link. Glad the mystery got solved but what a horrible ending.

[bvw]

As I have read as to what the mom will say, she will speak to hearsay -- hearsay from a seven-year old.

Certainly we remember -- we remember things that happened and also things that we once imagined and now take as having had actually happened. Memory is not perfect, never perfect -- there are things forgotten and things only dreamed and never real in it, indistinguishable.

[Valpal1]

Actually it will be a 19 year old testifying about what she remembers from when she was 7. I have very sharp clear memories age 5 and up. I have doubt that she remembers it well. Point of clarity, she reported it to her mother at the time it happened, DW mentioned it to Redden. So there are several sources that an "incident" indeed occurred, This raises the credibility factor quite a bit.

[UCANSEE2]

I have no idea why there were no finger prints in her room. Several times a year my housekeeper wipes woodwork so the same could be said of rooms in my house.

Danielle's family doesn't have a housekeeper and Brenda was out at a bar all evening. This is just one of the many bizzare ,unexplained features of this case. It is very hard to believe that there were NO PRINTS of Danielle anywhere in her own bedroom. TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE.

Nasty Grace used to be a PROSECUTOR. The kind that is not interested in JUSTICE, just in her own career. She is the kind of person that would spit on you, me and most posters on FREE REPUBLIC if it would help her selfish goals. She freely admitted that she doesn't care about the truth of this case, she only cares that the PROSECUTOR wins, and was totally biased in that respect. Now, any of you posters wanna argue with me on this?

[UCANSEE2]

Couldn't understand why Danielle's room was completely wiped down.

We don't really know whether it was 'wiped down' or whether the investigators just said they didn't find any prints.

[Valpal1]

testifying to her (the mother's) direct interaction with her daughter about the incident is not hearsay. It is direct testimony as to what she saw/heard/did.

[bvw]

Hmmm ...

[Valpal1]

>>>We don't really know whether it was 'wiped down' or whether the investigators just said they didn't find any prints.<<<

Why don't we know what they did or didn't find and why do I keep seeing posts about it, if it isn't sourceable.

[UCANSEE2]

Hello Cyn. Good to hear from you. Really? How does one go about transferring the fingerprints?

I had discussed this last month with another poster, and he told me that transferring prints was not that hard. The funny thing, since you mentioned it, is that the print in the MH was described by the expert that found it, as being UNUSUALLY WELL DEFINED. That after repeated transfers (making a copy of the print), it was still well defined.

This indicates to me it wasn't NATURAL at all . That someone transferred it there, and made DARN SURE it would stay and be easy to ID.

The fingerprints with dusting powder were still in place when the jury went in the MH for their viewing.

(EXACTLY. Ask a print expert, that in itself is HIGHLY UNUSUAL for a normal print.)

The fingerprints were placed with alot of pressure is my understanding. (more than a child could put there, huh?. More like some adult with a transfer kit using a roller on the transfer paper.

[Freedom2specul8]

Ok fair enough.

If it was an issue, feldman would have brought it up anyway. he aint no dummy...

[Valpal1]

Or conversely, that her hand was damp with the sweat, tears and salive as a sobbing victim of assault.

[cyncooper]

Hello.

On the contrary, I find the well-defined nature of the print goes to a non-transferred state of the print and is indicative of the child fighting for her life pressing with all her might.

[TheSpottedOwl]

I don't and won't have an opinion of that until I see proof. I stuck my fingers up my second oldest daughters nose several times trying to reinstall her nose ring. ARRRGGGHHH, I'm a child molester!!!! It really sucked when she dyed her hair with koolaid that time...

[cyncooper]

Did you sneak in her room while she slept to do the nose ring adjustment?

[TheSpottedOwl]

this is true. I just can't see why they didn't get all kinds of DNA fingerprints and all otherwise...