Evidence On Insects Likely To Continue: (Westerfield Trial "Creeps" Along At An Ant's Pace!)

Union Trib ^ | June 29, 2002 | Alex Roth

[alexandria]

2000 points and a cameo role for you!

Oh! Oh! Who Ya gonna be UCANSEE! Huh? Who?

[cyncooper]

The flaw is that Dusek says he drove around with her in the MH dead or alive most of the weekend.

Dusek has not said that explicitly.

I agree, the implication of his questions leads one to believe that is the prosecution theory of the case, though.

[UCANSEE2]

I agree. I said before that the LE's were following what they thought was a VALID LEAD. That there was reasonable suspicion. That After they found the porn, maybe it 'colored' their view of everything else. They may not have purposely 'planted' evidence, but they were 'happy' to find it.

As I said to VRWC_minion, there was evidence like the porn, and evidence that Danielle had been in the house and at sometime in the MH. There was the trip in the MH and things that looked suspicious.

SO, there are things that make it LOOK POSSIBLE he could have been involved.

Had the LE gone after someone else, they would most likey have been able to produce about the same amount of EVIDENCE they have on DW.

And that person could also be not guilty.

[RnMomof7]

All along...it has seemed obvious, that HIGH PLACED LE and POLITICAL types in San Diego....were nervous about too many details of the VD Swing Set from coming out....perhaps there were more players involved, then have been currently named? Or, there are a lot of CB Club members...who are quite nervous about the Club roster becoming public??

that is my take

[Jaded]

There would still be more child porn.

[cyncooper]

Did you think he said this because its generally assumed that this was the case by virtually every one here ?

No, he did not state it explicitly.

I do think the way his questions are phrased and the points he tried to emphasize have led most of us to believe that is the prosecution theory of the case.

[UCANSEE2]

Well, if it helps, I understood your comment from the beginning. Or your humble response, I should say. Admitting your kids leave dirty clothes on the floor for a long time, or sometimes thrown clean ones on the floor, makes you more real to me.

That is one of the problems with a typing format. You can't hear the inflection in the voice, and it can be hard to tell a joke from a whine. (or cheese from wine).

[EllaMinnow]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/070902_ctv.html

The defense wants to add the option of second-degree murder so the jury won't have to choose between acquittal and first degree.
The prosecution doesn't want the option.

It looks like the defense is more worried about their case than the prosecution is about theirs.

IMHO of course.

[VRWC_minion]

This would be in disagreement with the BUG EXPERTS conclusions as to when the body was placed there.

The ones so far. Let see what Goff says. My point is that the ussual profile on something like this is the child is killed almost immediately. Whether done by Westerfield or not.

WHen did he kill her then? Where did he hide her until he could put her in the MH?

I thought you read my post. My scenario is that he abducted her from her home around 3am. He puts her in his SUV and drives her to his RV and gets there about 3:20 am. He rapes and kills her, wraps her in a blanket, puts her in the luggage part of his SUV and heads out toward Dehesa road at about 4:20 am. Sun rise is about 6am and he desires to be home by then so he drives about 45 minutes to dump her at about 5:05 am. He then drives home to arrive there about 5:50 am. He goes to bed for about a 1 hour nap then rises and showers and resumes a "normal" day in his attempt to rid himself of the remaining evidence thatwould include clothing, blanket etc.

Where is the blood if he killed her in his house, SUV, or MH? .

Not a lot of blood from penetrating her vagina but some of it fell on the floor of his RV probably dripped from his penis. I doubt she was in the house. The blood on his jacket was from handling the blanket she was wrapped in and got there by touching it when he took the jacket off.

These are just a few of the questions I can come up with.

Thanks they are helpfull.

[cyncooper]

Had the LE gone after someone else, they would most likey have been able to produce about the same amount of EVIDENCE they have on DW.

I just don't buy that.

[VRWC_minion]

The flaw is that Dusek says he drove around with her in the MH dead or alive most of the weekend.

I don't see this in the opening statements at all. Is it possible you and others are making an assumption that this was said ?

[Jrabbit]

LOL! I think we think alike. If you are referring to K.S. statement to DW. If I remember, it wasn't in K.S. testimony, but one of the other swingers. I was off looking for it when my selfish family decided they wanted to eat!

[cyncooper]

Thanks for the info, red.

[UCANSEE2]

---what's the big D?

Just trying to explain why other posters may appear RUDE, or SHORT TEMPERED, or not want to spend time EDUCATING him. It is not that people are RUDE or MEAN, it is sometimes that they get tired of explaining the same thing for the HUNDREDTH TIME. Even though to VRWC_minion it is the first, to others explaining it isn't.

And after they explain it, many times they get told they are wrong, are asked to prove it or source it.

Nothing wrong with backing up your statements, but to have to do it over and over and over, makes some people edgy.

Was hoping V_m could see it as a way of understanding the reactions he might get.

[RnMomof7]

...(EXCERPT)......In addition to his activities the night of Danielle’s disappearance, Damon van Dam testified that, on at least three occasions, he had sex or tried to have sex with Easton in the presence of his wife. He and Brenda also admitted having had sex with Kemal and her husband, Andy, at a Halloween party in October 2000.

Could be ole Barb preferrd Brenda and he was left to do his own thing. Maybe he was a little angry with Brenda because of it ..so Barb came up to his room to make up ( pun) for it

[UCANSEE2]

! Who Ya gonna be UCANSEE! Huh? Who?

gee, dunno. What is open?

[VRWC_minion]

Gee, I don't know, you see any similarity between What you said, and what Dusek said ?

All I see is a promise that he will explain it. I thought that is what the closing is all about ? Right now is the process of presenting evidence on which the dots are connected later by the prosecuting attorney. Based on reading the entire opening I don't see Dusek presenting any theories other than simply outlining the case.

So, if he uses my theory to explain what happen can I graduate from Thread Jackal ?

[UCANSEE2]

Dusek has not said that explicitly.

I agree with that.

Now, that the prosecution has rested (well, kinda), what others are asking about the opening statement is

DID HE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS HE POSED?

ON a item by item list, the answer is NO.

That is why they say he failed to make his case.

[UCANSEE2]

Hint: One of the good quys. Oh, now you got me confused.

OK, I think I got it. THE BAILIFF (he's the only one I would trust in this entire thing)