Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Mudd Refuses Sequester Plea: Westerfield Jury Verdict In Sep? (Aug. 16th Verdict Watch)
Union Trib ^ | August 15, 2002 | Jeff Dillion/Steve Perez

Posted on 08/16/2002 6:39:20 AM PDT by FresnoDA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,741-1,743 next last
To: the Deejay
I always thought it was the defense that didn't have to prove anything. My mistake. You're always bringing me back into the real world.
341 posted on 08/16/2002 11:59:58 AM PDT by KnutCase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I'm predicting that the child porn is going to hurt him.

  It might. But personally, I expect the jury to concentrate on the kidnap/murder, and treat the child porn as an extra charge. If they find him innocent of the kidnap/murder, they'll probably find him innocent of the porn too, just as a slap in the DAs face. If they find him guilty, they'll probably through in the porn too, since it's hardly worth arguing about at that point.

  So, in the end, I don't think the porn will weigh heavily. Of course, I note they have called to examine the evidence, so maybe I'm just engaging in wishful thinking.

Drew Garrett

342 posted on 08/16/2002 12:00:59 PM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: KnutCase
It seems that all items the jury is requesting from the court are the things Feldman begged them to look at

That might be bad news for Westerfield. Assuming that the all think he is guilty and the defense asked them to look at specific things, I would be sure to do that before my final decision. If however I thought he was innocent I wouldn't need to take a special look at it.

343 posted on 08/16/2002 12:01:29 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
Um, they want to be thorough???

Possible but I would think that if the bug evidence was a slam dunk then why bother with the fibers or at the very least review the bugs first.

344 posted on 08/16/2002 12:03:32 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: small_l_libertarian
Why am I not surprised? LOL!

We'll be there...give it time.

sw

345 posted on 08/16/2002 12:03:53 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: KnutCase
It seems that all items the jury is requesting from the court are the things Feldman begged them to look at. Have they requested things that Dusek ask them to look at?

  What did Dusek ask them to look at? I thought he was just telling them to use their imaginations, go along with peer pressure, and hang DW themselves...

Drew Garrett

346 posted on 08/16/2002 12:04:36 PM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: NatureGirl
Of course, if the jury doesn't go back and read the testimony about the mummification process...that would be good for defense. I wonder if they are considering it at all?
347 posted on 08/16/2002 12:05:27 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: KnutCase
Whereas, in this trial, the defense did more "proving" (as well as debunking) than the prosecutor.
348 posted on 08/16/2002 12:05:49 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
If you believe the bugs any study of the other evidence is a waste of time. They apparently doubt the bugs.

They are ? Only a BLOW-FLY ON THE WALL in the juryroom would know that. Maybe the jury is only doubting the ice encrused bugs you conjured up.
349 posted on 08/16/2002 12:06:04 PM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: PrairieDawg
There was no Danielle hair on the headboard..which makes duseks headbanging theory even more stupid.
350 posted on 08/16/2002 12:06:11 PM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Dusek's crazy theory of coyotes waiting for two weeks and then "opening up the body to flies" just doesn't fly.

While both Faulkner and Haskell said that yes, flies would take advange of openings created by coyotes to lay eggs, both always mentioned the urogenital or vaginal areas as also being a prime egg-laying site when answering that question. Haskell further stated that if, for some reason, the coyotes waited two weeks to "open up" the body, the newly-exposed underlying organs/tissues would be too decomposed at that stage to be attractive to flies as an egg-laying site. Haskell also said it would be strange for coyotes to wait so long to feed on the body, as a mummified body in such an advanced state would not be so attractive to them. Coyotes normally go for a fresh body.

Conclusion: In the unlikely event, that for some strange reason, both coyotes and flies were not attracted to the body for some two weeks, and then coyotes came and "opened up" the body at that point, there would have been no blow fly larvae in the body at all -- the flies would not have laid eggs in a body whose external areas were mummified and whose internal regions were in such an advanced stage of decomposition. Only cheese skippers and the like would have been attracted at that point, not blow flies.

This is the part of Haskell's testimonly I find EXTREMELY compelling:

Haskell: I'VE SEEN THE GREEN BOTTLE FLY PHAENICIA SERICATA AND ANOTHER SPECIES RELATIVE OF THAT GREEN BOTTLE FLY, THEY COME IN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. BUT AFTER THE FIRST DAY OR DAY AND A HALF OF DECOMPOSITION, WE DON'T SEE THEM ANY MORE IN THE ATTRACTABILITY AND THE BLACK BLOW FLY THEN COMES IN AND COLONIZES ON SUCCESSIVE DAYS BY LAYING EGGS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT FLY, THE GREEN BOTTLE FLY, IS A VERY OPPORTUNISTIC -- HE HAS TO COME IN OR SHE HAS TO COME IN AND GRAB THAT FOOD RESOURCE IMMEDIATELY. THAT'S HER SURVIVABILITY FOR HER OFFSPRING. AND AFTER A PASSAGE OF TIME, I WOULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED PHAENICIA SERICATA TO HAVE BEEN THERE IF THE BODY HAD EXPERIENCED MUCH DECOMPOSITION AT ALL.

Q: AND YOU DID FIND PHAENICIA SERICATA THERE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: DR. FAULKNER DID OR DAVID FAULKNER DID.

Q:SO THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE NOTION THAT THE BODY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED SAY ON FEBRUARY 4TH OR FEBRUARY 3RD OR FEBRUARY 2ND, IS THAT RIGHT?

A ABSOLUTELY.

Taa Daa!!! The body had not decomposed past 36 hours when the green bottle flies laid eggs in it. There were maggots of this green bottle fly present in the body at autopsy. THIS IS THE CLINCHER! I doesn't matter what any ants or coyotes did or didn't do -- if the body had been older than 36 hours when first accessible to insects, THERE WOULD HAVE NO LAVAE of this fly!!! (I suppose freezing/cold storage of the body could be argued, but it certainly couldn't have been placed there by DW in any case.)

351 posted on 08/16/2002 12:06:22 PM PDT by wonders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: KnutCase
at my age (103)

Wow! You're that old? You type so much younger.
352 posted on 08/16/2002 12:06:24 PM PDT by NatureGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
"I expect the jury to concentrate on the kidnap/murder, and treat the child porn as an extra charge. "

That could be true if they don't think it's a motive. If it is child porn, and i have no reason to believe it isn't at this point..it would be a travesty to let that charge go--even if they find him innocent of murder.

353 posted on 08/16/2002 12:08:00 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If they come to your door

I was visited by federal agents and I never said a word, I only nodded my head no that I wouldn't answer questions. I also had a witness sit with me and take notes. I asked her to make a summary of what was said.

Then I hired a lawyer. He was shocked (and thrilled) I never said a word. Even though I was innocent I could have been targeted.

354 posted on 08/16/2002 12:09:18 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: wonders
Woo-hoo! Wonders, that might be the find of the day!
355 posted on 08/16/2002 12:09:33 PM PDT by small_l_libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Kimmers,
OK, here's a science experiment for you and VRWC_minion:

1. Kill a mouse
2. Drop it's (small) body in a dry area away from anthills, and other animal lairs.
3. See if animals/bugs leave it alone for 24 hours and if it mummifies.

My point? IMHO, there is no way that animals or bugs would
have left a body untouched for the number of days Dusek
says. Unless the body was frozen solid (not likely in San Diego but I've observed it in Colorado) animals and bugs would show up. In droves. Coyotes, mice, ants, blowflys, etc wouldn't take 10 days to get started in my opinion.

FRegards,
PrairieDawg

356 posted on 08/16/2002 12:09:42 PM PDT by PrairieDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Yes they were. The entire body WAS NOT mummified. But then again the Mummy Boy had her dead before she was even missing. He adjusted his times. How stupid is that?
357 posted on 08/16/2002 12:09:57 PM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
We don't know which jurors are asking for which evidence. Could be a separate juror on each item. Sometimes a single juror will ask for the evidence in order to bring others around to his point of view. Since Juror #10 is the one sending notes to the judge it doesn't necessarily mean that he is in total control of what the jury asks for.
358 posted on 08/16/2002 12:10:03 PM PDT by KnutCase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
And there be the standard the "Presumption of Guilt" school of thought. Praise G-d it is not the school of thought of we have inherited from our forefathers!

We -- a Free people seeking the Blessings of Liberty have chosen -- by necessity of securing those blessings and keeping our freedom -- "Presumption of Innocence"!

359 posted on 08/16/2002 12:10:06 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Maybe it is just possible they are taking their duties seriously and discussing the evidence in the order it was presented during the trial

Good point.

360 posted on 08/16/2002 12:10:22 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,741-1,743 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson