Posted on 08/13/2002 10:12:33 PM PDT by FresnoDA
I cannot accept the award tonight.
I understand that one of the prizes includes Brenda, Barb and Denise serving at my whim...
Like I said, it made me feel like I could puke, just like denise felt when she got back to the VD's house.
LOL!
Or someone like keith stone...schmoozed barb all night long, took a viagra and then barb went up and "did" damon.
I'll call Tim Curry. He owes me one. Done deal.
That would be the one.
I've been there only one time. I quite liked it.
My opinion: You need to go slow there. You can't do it out of the standard tourist books. You need to walk around, get lost, and find your own tour.
They do have wonderful toilets. The best I've ever seen.
But it isn't any of that, nor any of all the flowers or the semi-legal marijuana or the red light district or any of the other things you read about. That's just the surface.
The Dutch are remarkable people. They carry around a lot of guilt about their failure to oppose Hitler during WWII. I could state that more intensely, but it's probably better that I do not.
If you do go there, you must practice your "drechts". In one way or an another, everything there is a either a drecht or a gracht. The canals certainly are, and so is everything else.
They will not want to hear you trying to make make those sounds, but you will need to do it anyway. It's a primal urge. It comes up from the throat.
I am lucky enough to know of a little town toward the south that is called Dordrecht. It's very old, and it has its own canals. I think I know someone there who would be willing to let me a room for a month or two. Take the dog, get a used bicycle...
You'd need to see it.
Yes, I agree, there should have been such. We called them "body slicks" but now I've learned in this trial that the correct term is "body silhouette".
Two forensic witnesses testified that there was none in this case: the ground was dry beneath the body. I think (but I'm not positive) that those two witnesses were the ME and Faulkner (the first forensic entomologist who testified). Both went to the site where the body was recovered.
Really strange. I don't recall what the explanation(s) for this was/were, but seem to remember something about the dry Santa Ana winds may have pulled any moisture into the air -- I have no experience with such an odd occurence. I think it's weird.
The ME testified there were no signs the body had been moved. I suppose if it had been moved after rigor mortis was set, and left in appoximately the same position in the new location, there would be no indication of it having been moved. (Any slight inconsistencies could be put down to animals pulling the body.)
The ME testified the body was in good enough shape to determine there were no bruises, so I presume it was also in good enough shape to determine via livor mortis that it had not been moved. If so, that sure whacks Dusek's theory that DW had the body rolling around in the storage compartment of his RV.
Also, Dusek's theory that the body mummified in the storage compartment sends me batty. You don't get mummification in an enclosed space like that!
Anyway, according the ME's testimony (and other forensic specialists, one being Haskell, I think), the face, neck and extremities were mummified (pretty typical), but the interior of the thorax and abdomen were not (also pretty typical).
I don't get why there was no "body silhouette" at all. Mighty strange. Unless, of course the body was moved after leakage of the fluids formed in the first stages of putrefaction. Or the body had been frozen soon after death (killing off the endogenous bacteria which account for much of the process of putrefaction, particularly in the abdominal area). Both possibilities seem really "out there" though.
One thing which struck me as REALLY odd: there was testimony (from LE I believe) that there were drag marks through the dry leaves, indicating the body had been dragged into position from the north. Well, if there was so much Santa Ana wind, why were the leaves still arranged so as to indicate the body had been dragged there? After either a month (according to Dusek) or after about two weeks (according to the forensic entomologists)? Hello?
It is my understanding that this drag mark is different from the small trail which was some feet from the body, which had some traces of the "brown/black oily substance" you described: that trail was determined to be too small to have been the body being dragged, and believed to be from an animal carrying away some entrails. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, and it's all the same drag mark with different interpretations by different witnesses! Well, back to bed for me.
Jack of all trades, master of none. That's me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.