Westerfield Jury Reaches Verdict DEATH

o | Joe Hadenuf

[Joe Hadenuf]

Death

[Jaded]

Ah, the shape of things to come.

[Jaded]

And the little factiod about not testing all of the evidence.. oh yeah, there's not looking for the other fibers.... and well the list goes on.

[Freedom2specul8]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/020624_am1.html

A WITH OUT OF THE FOUR STAINS THAT GAVE THE REDDISH-BROWN AND LIGHT REDDISH-BROWN STAIN APPEARANCE OR COLOR, OUT OF THE FOUR, THREE CAME OUT POSITIVE FOR THE CHEMICAL PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/703322/posts?q=1&&page=51
BLOOD
SAN DIEGO -- A criminalist said that he lifted two long, blond hairs from inside boxer shorts seized from the laundry room of Westerfield, who faces murder and kidnapping of Danielle van Dam. Sean Soriano also said stains with a blood-like appearance were found on a green and blue jacket Westerfield had dry cleaned two days after Danielle turned up missing He said the jacket -- along with a pair of pants and a T-shirt -- were delivered to him at the San Diego Police Crime Lab. "My role was to examine the items for the presence of blood," Soriano told Deputy District Attorney George Clarke. "I noted stains on the jacket." Three stains tested positive for the presumptive presence of blood, the criminalist testified. They were on the front right middle, the front right shoulder and the neck portion of the jacket, he said

[connectthedots]

CTD:(Assuming Tony was not either misquoted or made a mis-statement) Tony, mid-February was the EARLIEST DATE. I certainly hope DW wasn't convicted because the jury confused the meanings of the words 'latest' and 'earliest'. I remembering Dusek trying to make this issue as confusing as possible, and maybe he succeeded.

We need to reread the transcript. As much as My impulsiveness is wanting me to..I don't want to. Would you?

The two of you asked the same question. I don't want to bother looking for it in the trial transcript, but I believe I can convince you using logic that I am correct. Keep in mind that I did preface my remark with an assumption. If that assumption is not true, there is no point for me to make; but assuming the assumption is true, here goes.

1. If mid-Feb was the latest date that the body was deposited, should have been additional insect evidence present if the body was disposited at a time much closer to the date when DW was being trailed. None of the bug guys (except for the last prosecution expert, who Feldman shot down) could explain why there was only a single generation of the one fly or the absence of the particular beetle if DW had actually deposited the body in early February. In fact, they were all puzzled.

2. If the mid-February date was the latest time the body could have been deposited, that means it could have been deposited earlier than that. If this was the case, all Dusek would have had to do was simply say all it proved was she was deposited at the site prior to mid-February. Early Feb is before mid-Feb, so why did Dusek have to work so hard to try and convince the jury to ignore the bugs. This, by itself, would have been no help to the defense.

3. Prior to trial, Haskell was quoted in a SD paper that his evaluation and findings related to the bug evidence would be more helpful to the defense than the prosecution. Clearly this can only mean that his testimony would be that mid-February would be the earliest time at which the body was deposited. Haskell was also quite clear that he determined the body was deposited sometime between Feb. 14 and 16. One could not reasonable conclude this to mean that mid-February was the latest date. One could only conclude that Haskell's testimony was that Feb 14 was the earliest date; not the latest.

4. Don't you remember all the discussion about Dusek being in a bind of having to narrow the date of the body's exposure to the bugs to a time much closer to Feb 4 or 5? Why would he have such a problem if mid-Feb was merely the latest date?

5. It was also the absence of beetle larvae that most puzzled the bug guys; that and no second generation fly larvae. If the body had been deposited with a time consistent with DW's guilt, beetle larvae would have to be present at the time the body was discovered. It wasn't.

6. If the bug testimony could only establish the latest date, there would have been no reason to even have the testimony. Dusek did all he could to create confusion about the bug evidence. He had to, because if the bug testimony as given by the bug guys was accepted as fact, which it should have been since it was uncontroverted, the jury would have been certainly acquitted DW. If the jury actually ignored or greatly discounted the bug evidence because of a simple, but tragic misunderstanding of whether the mid-Feb date was the latest rather than the earliest date the body could have been deposited, DW has possibly been a victim of a grave miscarriage of justice. The jury may possibly have confused 'length of time' with 'latest date'. Please note my inclusion of the words 'if' and 'possibly'.

[Jaded]

Welcome to the club. Don't speak to loudly.

[connectthedots]

Haskell = Faulkner

[Freedom2specul8]

One spot of blood was westerfields..some of us think that drop came from this wound.

JACKET

[cyncooper]

Try this: kill a critter and put it out in the back yard. Squeamish or no animals ? try a defrosted chicken.

Start your watch ...

What comes first ? Blo-flies or "mummification" ?

Well, since he drove around with her in the MH, perhaps in the storage compartment at one point, your experiment would not be duplicative of what happened to poor Danielle.

[Jaded]

How do you explain the Unidentified DNA mixed with Danielle's DNA on her blanket on her bed in her bedroom?

[cyncooper]

I missed out on this blood on jacket part totally. I'm hoping to hear it was more than just a few pin prick sized spots of blood.

It was more than a pin prick.

But I'm curious. What if it had been "just" a pin prick. Do you imagine that would be indicative of innocence?

My opinion is there shouldn't have been one tiny speck of her blood, hair or fingerprint in his MH, let alone her blood on his jacket. We haven't even discussed his house, including his bed and laundry plus the fiber evidence.

[Valpal1]

Sorry, find it in the transcripts.

You're the one disputing the jury man and claiming to have heard/understood more accurately than him. Burden of proof is on you.

[Helen]

...and the disinformation train rolls on and on and on and on....

[oline]

It's this easy:

You can't steal a life you must pay for that life

and he will...with his own...it is only fitting.

[Freedom2specul8]

Or this..

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/20020624-9999-pm1.html

Q: NOW I'M SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO -- I'M MARKING ON MINE SO YOU SEE IT AND I SEE IT ON YOURS.A: M-HM.Q: AND YOU INDICATED I NOTED ONE WHITE HAIR. I'M SORRY. IS THAT WORD WAVY?A: YES.Q: BETWEEN DRIVER'S SEAT AND DOOR ON FLOOR. PERIOD. CORRECT?A: YES. Q: POSSIBLY AN ANIMAL HAIR, CORRECT?A: YES. THAT'S WHAT I WROTE. THAT'S CORRECT.Q: AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, RIGHT?A: NO. IT TURNED OUT ON FURTHER EXAMINATION THAT IT WAS NOT AN ANIMAL HAIR.Q: WHAT WAS IT?A: IT WAS A HUMAN HAIR. AND IT APPEARED TO BE A PUBIC HAIR.

[cyncooper]

and the disinformation train rolls on and on and on and on....

It certainly does.

(Got any documentation to support your stating the polaroid was "fuzzy"?)

[cyncooper]

Faulkner's testimony was part of the transcripts the jury had read back.

It appears to me they wanted to make very sure they understood his testimony clearly.

[Freedom2specul8]

Wow, I appreciate all the time you spent on that post. Would you mind factoring in the mummification testimony? I think it helps explain some of the points you drew out in point one I think. (Unless I misread it)

[dread78645]

Dreadster. That's kewl.

Yep, it is.

but Dreadster ain't close enuf to Don Read,
AKA '!uunet!calcas!sysop', then sysop@calcasieu.com (1992-99), or systech@kodak.com (1987-92), and !uuvax!harris!charl!tech (1984-87)

BTW it's spelled 'k3w1'.

If God didn't mean for them to be sheared, they wouldn't be sheep.

[Valpal1]

Well, that's why I want CTD to prove his claim.

I am quite sure the jury understood the testimony and took the time to make sure they did.

It will be very interesting when the closed hearing transcripts are made available on the 23rd.

More wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[JLO]

UCANSEE2, I'm with you. If he doesn't appeal, then I guess it's true. That would be the only reason I might believe he's guilty.

But, I know you and I aren't lawyers. Isn't there an automatic appeal in a death penalty?

So, what say, the lawyers here? Can you please explain? It would be appreciated to find out - what's next? Is it mandatory that Feldman proceed with an appeal? Thanks in advance for info.

JLO

PS - (If I knew how to 'ping' attorneys, I'd do it, but - sorry to say 'pinging' isn't in me - I hope someone else will do it, though, LOL!!)