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

Union Trib ^ | June 29, 2002 | Alex Roth

[VRWC_minion]

The prosecution doesn't want the option

I guess they are not too bugged by the defense bugologists.

[UCANSEE2]

...who are quite nervous about the Club roster becoming public??

I don't remember who provided this information but it is applicable to the above statement.

MOST MEMBERS of SWING CLUBS are NURSES and POLICE !

[VRWC_minion]

Just read your link. The title doesn't support the plea stuff.

[John Jamieson]

I listened to pieces of the court discussion this morning. I think the transcript will have a lot of interesting stuff in it. The judge talked about a jury instruction dealing with witness testimony from past felons. The best possibility I could think of was Dirty Bob, anyone else catch this???

[UCANSEE2]

I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.

IT was ALSO a JOKE. Do you get it?

[VRWC_minion]

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

However in this case common wisdom about what Dusek said is in error.

[RnMomof7]

MOST MEMBERS of SWING CLUBS are NURSES and POLICE !

I have read teachers and police.

A manager of Bob Dole was a swinger..our FR resident swinger mentioned that factoid

So the politicians have a lack of self contol and committment ......now ain't that a surprise?

[cyncooper]

IT was ALSO a JOKE. Do you get it?

Oh, OK!!

[Jrabbit]

Duseks opening statement is not evidence. When I pointed out what I believe to be the flaw in your scenario, I never mentioned "opening statement".

[alexandria]

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.

Yes, that unfortunutely is true which is why taking only the witnesses testimony part of the whole case and coming up with possible suspects is the wrong way to approach it. It leads to assumptions (like the child porn) clouding, or downright ignoring, the other facts in direct evidence (like the unknown fingerprints, DNA).
Let's face it certain things have been shown in this case one being the LE did not take evidence found and anaylze it on it's own merits. Two the body and bug evidence shows DW could not have deposited that body at the site.

IMO the reason DW was picked as suspect is because of the PR firm backing the parents as innocent. Whoops! Better not look that way. Big No No to put parents up to microscope when they have all that media backing them.

[VRWC_minion]

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

This was the same feeling about the recent Martha Moxley case in CT until the attorney skill fully tied all the testimony together at the closing to construct the points so they all led to Skakel's conviction.

Keep in mind that the case has parts to it. The current part is to bring forward the evidence that will be required to use to tell the story. Its not the story.

[rolling_stone]

Ramrodriquez... he's the guy who had Danielle dead before Feb. 1st, right? Must of earned his doctorate in Tijuana.

TJ, Tennesee, close? Maybe too much Jack Daniels?

[cyncooper]

A manager of Bob Dole was a swinger...

Are you talking about Roger Stone? I thought he denied it and said the pics on the supposed ads were computer altered images. (Wouldn't put THAT past as 'Rat)

[UCANSEE2]

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

(1) The threads and the posters on FR are not the JURY. Were they, I would say DW has nothing to worry about. (IMSO)(In My Silly Opinion)

(2)The jury is limited as to what they can consider, they are being deluged with the MEDIA BS we all have seen and remarked on.

(3)The Judge has severly limited DW's ability to provide defense. The Van Dam's/The judge wouldn't allow defense to review/test the supposed CRIME SCENE.

(4) The only good part is that JURIES are Human, and do what they want regardless of what judges tell them (sometimes)

SO YES. I think DEFENSE has a lot to worry about, regardless to whether DW committed ANY CRIME AT ALL.

[VRWC_minion]

This was your statementThe flaw is that Dusek says he drove around with her in the MH dead or alive most of the weekend

If Dusek didn't make this part of the opening statements then at what point could he make this part of the court documents ? He wasn't a witness ? WAs it something he told press ? I'm confused.

[cyncooper]

past as 'Rat=past a 'Rat

[John Jamieson]

I need to reread the transcript to be sure, but I thought I heard quite a discussion this morning between the judge and defense about to the giant lack of evidence for where, when and how, in this case. Both seemed to agree about it. The judge was adamant that that eighter the prosecution had to prove it's theory to the jury, or DW would walk. He wanted NO compromises.

[John Jamieson]

either, sorry

[Freedom2specul8]

You said: "I still say the fact that the POLICE had a search warrant searching for ROPES/CHAINS, etc means they thought they had one of these CHILD PORN RING guys. "

I said: " It's not unusual to look for ropes and chains when searching for a kidnapping victim is it??? "

You said: "Your statement above would be correct. It is not the statement I made."

My point was that it should have been standard operating procedure...to look for those items which would therefore show that that your theory wouldn't be necessarily proven by that search.

On the other hand, the possibility that they wanted to rule that "out" that he was connected to the ring seems very logical, especially considering that they found 'child' porn.

[VRWC_minion]

Are these transcripts available anyhwere ? Wouldn't the press have done headlines on something like that ?