Q. HOW LONG COULD THAT FIBER HAVE BEEN THERE? A. WELL,
I THINK THE FIBER CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE FOR AS LONG AS THE BODY WAS IN ITS RESTING LOCATION. THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THE FIBER WAS THERE FOR MUCH PRIOR TO THAT BECAUSE IT WAS TANGLED IN SUCH A LARGE WAD OF HAIR ON THE NECKLACE. SO I THINK THAT THE FIBER GOT ONTO THE HAIR ON THE NECKLACE AT SOME POINT CLOSE TO WHERE IT WAS WHERE THE BODY WAS PLACED WHERE IT WAS FOUND. Q.
ARE YOU GUESSING? A.
I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION. Q. IS ANOTHER REASONABLE INTERPRETATION THAT THAT FIBER HAD BEEN WRAPPED AROUND PREVIOUS TO THAT TIME, AND THAT DANIELLE HADN'T BEEN MOVING FOR A WHILE? A. SHE HADN'T BEEN MOVED? THAT CERTAINLY IS POSSIBLE. Q.
IF SHE HAD BEEN KEPT IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION, SAY FOR TEN DAYS, IT COULD STAY THERE, COULDN'T IT? MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YOU NEED NOT ANSWER. BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE BODY WASN'T PLACED IN ITS ULTIMATE RESTING LOCATION UNTIL APPROXIMATELY FEBRUARY THE 16TH AND FEBRUARY THE 18TH. A. OKAY. Q. AND ASSUME THAT FOR A FEW DAYS OR SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THAT THERE HADN'T BEEN MUCH IN THE WAY OF MOVEMENT OF THE BODY. COULD THE FIBER HAVE BEEN THERE? MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. HOW MANY DAYS PRIOR TO FEBRUARY THE 16TH, IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION, COULD THAT FIBER HAVE BEEN PLACED OR LOCATED WHERE ULTIMATELY YOU IDENTIFIED IT? MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU MAY ANSWER THAT, IF YOU KNOW. THE WITNESS: IF THE VICTIM WAS NOT MOVING
OR PARTAKING IN ANY NORMAL ACTIVITIES AS FAR AS PERSONAL HYGIENE, THEN CERTAINLY THE FIBER COULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED AND REMAINED ATTACHED THROUGH THAT TIME. BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. AND IF ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS WITH REGARD TO YOUR ANSWER, ASSUMING ALL OF WHAT YOU'VE JUST ARTICULATED IS THE CASE, HOW LONG COULD THE FIBER HAVE BEEN --
There is no testimony to Danielle having a bath that evening and her hair did not look groomed for her passport picture, so this witness cannot say that the fiber was there at the time of death. I don't see Feldman conceding anything, he was just shut down by the judge.
There is no testimony to Danielle having a bath that evening and her hair did not look groomed for her passport picture, so this witness cannot say that the fiber was there at the time of death. I don't see Feldman conceding anything, he was just shut down by the judge. From the description given in the testimony, the fiber was wrapped around hair that was tied tightly and wrapped around the necklace. (I may be misqouting, this is what I remember) Sounds like the fiber could have been there ever since she started wearing the choker. It could have gotten their when she was abducted/died. It could have gotten there 1 week or 2 weeks, or 6 weeks, or 120 weeks before that.
All of these are just as possible.
Remember, the hair with the fiber was "STUCK" in the choker, and Danielle NEVER took the CHOKER off for TWO YEARS.
...her hair did not look groomed for her passport picture,...First, her hair looks smooth to me--not a snarl. This sounds like some wad of hair.
Feldman's only hypothetical was regarding a scenario where the fiber gets in Danielle's hair and then she doesn't move. Sounds like a concession to me.
Even granting your "not groomed" statement, she certainly moved since the cookie visit! She would also sleep and wasn't she in a dressing room at Mervyn's? The act of changing clothes---never mind that between the cookie visit and bedtime and school she would have changed clothes numerous times--would dislodge a fiber.