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

Union Trib ^ | June 29, 2002 | Alex Roth

[cyncooper]

The flaw is that Dusek says...post #288

You are playing a game. post #386

[clearvision]

I think it now seems much easier for the Jury to convict of kidnapping (with murder implied). If all the jury has to be convinced of is that she was in the RV that weekend then they may only look at MH evidence and not believe the dogs missed and that she could have been there some other time.

ALL the rest of the testimony (both prosecution and defense) is not relevant since it does not matter how/when she died, just that they are convinced she was in the RV. It does not matter when she died, how she was removed from the house (I think the Judge said if the parents did not give permission then it is assumed she was kidnapped), when her body was dumped, or what the motivation might have been.

[VRWC_minion]

Do you think they really have one that fits

I have come reasonably close to developing one. I imagine the prosecutor will do much better. I agree I must do a better job of looking as evidence that ties the SUV to the body but I recall there being something there.

I also agree the skiing bug guy needs to not only explain his findings that puts date back to Feb 2, but also shows a credible reason that the other bug guys would have arrived at the same answer had they had the right facts.

[cyncooper]

Thanks for the article. An excerpt:

"A juror who believes that the prosecution has proven that Mr. Westerfield is the actual killer, but a juror that has some doubts about how the murder happened or how the girl got where she got" should have an alternative to felony murder, Boyce said.

[UCANSEE2]

AND if you read it, it is being asked for the DEFENSE for a very smart reason.

The defense asked at a conference with prosecutors and the judge Monday that panelists be allowed to consider a second murder charge, first-degree premeditated murder. Such a charge is not linked to kidnapping and requires the prosecution to prove the crime was planned.

Which, they have not and can not likely do. SO DW would go free.

Here is another reason for worrying":

defense lawyer Steven Feldman said he was worried jurors might feel pressure to convict because of their anger at Samantha’s accused killer, a man previously acquitted of molestation charges, Mudd said he still did not think sequestration of the jury was necessary.

As a precaution though, the judge said, he has ordered court official to begin making a contingency plan for sequestration during deliberations.

[Dave_in_Upland]

Do you think they really have one that fits. None of us have been able to come up with one!

I was thinking today that the best closing argument the Defense has is the Prosecution's Opening Statement, with appropriate pauses to ask where the proof was offered; and closingwith the anthropoligist's evidence that Danielle was dead two weeks before she went missing.

I also reflected that with the evidence that was collected it may have been probable that they could have nabbed the real killer.

[UCANSEE2]

All driving took place in the SUV.

Just as well, You are absolutely incorrect. Show us any evidence Danielle was EVER in the SUV.

[John Jamieson]

Yes, it's oh, so simple that way. Why not take one more step backward? If the he had porno, he must have kidnapped her, if he kidnapped her, he must have killed her? QED

[cyncooper]

Is my car dented? Is there evidence that I snuck to some auto repair shop and got the dent fixed? Is there any evidence whatsoever that my car was involved in an accident? It takes more than a disgruntled witness.

[Freedom2specul8]

Who's the client? The people.
What's their position? The people believe that Danielle was removed (kidnapped) from her home without the knowledge of her parents by said defendant, David alan wasterfield. Sometime during the kidnapping, DW killed Danielle. The motivation can be shown by his collection of rape videos of which the jury should remember seeing during the opening statement. The people believes that the murder occurred sometime between feb 1st thru feb 4th..as evidenced by her mummified skin..as testified about to you, the jurors by our expert mummyologist. The mummyologist explained to you that the skin of such a young child can indeed mummify within 24 hrs after time of death... yada yada yada..

[John Jamieson]

Feldman really projected just that approach in his opening statement.

[Karson]

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???

I caught that but had no clue who they were referring to. Uh, who is Dirty Bob?

[Jrabbit]

Evidently, all the testimony from the campers about closed curtains was just to throw the defense off. The jury must have been in on this little joke, too. The "hit" on the MH by the dog? Just for laughs. The guy was entertaining! And the tow truck driver! Hearing DW talk to someone? That zany, madcap Dusek had everyone biting on that little nugget! The fingerprints, blood and fibers were all planted by the LE just to throw everyone off the fact that Danielle was never in the MH that weekend! Have I left anything out?

[UCANSEE2]

In my scenario, HE NEVER DROVE THE GIRL ANYWHERE IN THE RV. All driving took place in the SUV.

I went back and read all your replies where you have been postulating this theory. Talk about a FAR REACH.

Danielle's scent, dead or alive, was not detected in the SUV. No trace evidence (Not even DNA which you can't clean up, not even at the dry cleaners apparently) found in the SUV. GIVE IT UP.

Where did he commit the rape? In public view ? You said he didn't do it in the MH but his penis dripped blood in there. I am beginning to worry about you.

[Freedom2specul8]

Hey, it was quite profound when he stated that he thought the defendant committed "said crimes".

[John Jamieson]

The tow truck driver.

[cyncooper]

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

This 'example' has been tried before on these threads. It has also been totally debunked here.

I am one who has posted the same statement as VRWC_minion before. I have never seen anyone "debunk" that observation. And I've never shared that thought with minion, either, for the record.

[VRWC_minion]

THe jury will decide on two levels. Logical/reason and emotion. Emotionally it will some down to two choices

Goldilocks

or

The big bad wolf

[UCANSEE2]

Defense wants the predmed because is requires proof he planned it. Prosecution doesn't want them to have it because they can't prove it.

Dusek knows if the jury buys into DW did it, with the Kidnapping/Murder charge, it IS SIMPLE. He doesn't have to prove how/where/when. It is there in what you read, others can be LEAD TO WATER, you just can't MAKE THEM DRINK.

[John Jamieson]

That's required to have a trial....not proof we don't need one!