Westerfield Jury Reaches Verdict DEATH

o | Joe Hadenuf

[Helen]

About 3/4s of the way down in this transcript:

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

It's also contains the testimony regarding the size of the spot of DNA

[cyncooper]

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.

Absolutely!

[Dave_in_Upland]

I certainly hope DW wasn't convicted because the jury confused the meanings of the words 'latest' and 'earliest'.

Conviction by semantics. When the prosecution mentioned latest they were always referring from the date of the disappearance i.e. 2-17 would be later than 2-16; but when Faulkner said latest he meand from the date of discovery of the body i.e. 2-16 would be later than 2-17.

But it didn't matter because the prosecution had a drop of something that everyone was allowed to assume was blood, and a drop of blood in a little girls disappearance trumps all other evidence for the mob.

[fortheDeclaration]

But it was such a little spot, doncha know, so it could have reasonably, doubtfully gotten there from transference, or been planted by LE, or left by aliens. Dang nab it, where's my tinfoil? They're beaming words into my keyboard again.

Amen! LOL!

[Valpal1]

I notice the conspicuous absence of statements by the parents.

Are they declining interviews?

[Freedom2specul8]

but..... Do you know how they were able to tell the blood was from both dw and dvd?

This entire article is interesting....
http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/serology/3.htm
According to Henry C. Lee, a forensics expert who has assisted law enforcement in over 6,000 major criminal investigations—including that of O. J. Simpson---blood evidence is found most often in "crimes of violence such as homicide, assault, and sexual assault." It may be in the form of fresh liquid, coagulated, dried, or as a small drop or stain, and each form involves a different method of preservation and collection.
---
There are several tests—presumptive tests used strictly for screening---that will differentiate between blood and other substances, but if other chemicals are present at the scene to which the test chemicals are sensitive, the tests may be vulnerable to corruption. For that reason, these tests are done with great care. A positive result from any of them is an indication to go ahead and use other tests to confirm.

[Dave_in_Upland]

How big was the blood spot(s)?

First of all it was never identified as blood, we only know that they got her DNA from that spot.

We also do not know a lot about that spot because the decetive who found it did not follow procedure and only took a poor Poloroid picture of the spot before ruining the evidence.

He did suceed however in ruining it so much that it could not be cross examined. Like so much else in this case, whenever steps or assumptions needed to be taken to confirm DW's guilt somehow the PD always seemed to be able to come through.

[Freedom2specul8]

Lewis Maddux, laboratory director of Orchid Cellmark of Germantown, Md., said his firm received DNA from a blood stain on Westerfield's jacket.

"I conclude, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the DNA came from Danielle van Dam," Maddux said.

[cyncooper]

The testimony is not that the poloroids were "fuzzy".

The testimony is not there was anything unusual about Soriano taking polaroid photos. In fact he states that is what he was trained to do

[Freedom2specul8]

It also matched the spot of blood on the MH floor.

[Helen]

:-)

You certainly make it easier to understand why the 12 jurors arrived at their conclusion!

[cyncooper]

It may be today was too raw a day to speak.

[cyncooper]

He did suceed however in ruining it so much that it could not be cross examined.

The bloodstains were available to the defense to do their own testing if they wished.

As an aside, the fiber evidence could have been tested, too, by the defense.

[connectthedots]

Wow, I appreciate all the time you spent on that post. Would you mind factoring in the mummification testimony?

My comments were addressing the 'latest v. earliest' matter. As for mummification, I think the evidence was pretty clear that a body does not mummify in 2-3 days. If it had, insects would not have been attracted to it. The body may have dried out somewhat in 2-3 days, but mummify? I don't think so, and neither did the bug experts.

[Auntie Mame]

It's really nice of you to go to all this trouble to answer my question. I've been reading from your links, but there's no answer to this one, last question: Did they get any DNA evidence from those blood stains?

[Auntie Mame]

Oops, read Dave in Upland's response. He says they did get Danielle's DNA from those spots. Thanks, everyone, for helping me out here.

Freepers are great!

[Freedom2specul8]

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-152365520020620-200629.html

This is a new article mind you..but it can be confirmed in the transcripts.

Lewis Maddux, laboratory director of Orchid Cellmark of Germantown, Md., said his firm received DNA from a blood stain on Westerfield's jacket.

"I conclude, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the DNA came from Danielle van Dam," Maddux said.

He said the odds of another match were one in 57 quadrillion, equal to 57 plus 15 zeroes.

SNIP

Were you able to calculate an estimate of how rare those matching profiles were between Danielle van Dam and the carpet stain, item 84?" prosecutor George "Woody" Clarke asked the DNA analyst.

"Yes, I was," Peer answered.

"With regard to the Caucasian population, what is the approximate likelihood of someone chosen at random from that population, having a set DNA genetic type that was found in both the carpet stain and Danielle van Dam?" Clarke asked Peer.

"That frequency would be -- in the Caucasian population -- approximately one in 130 quadrillion," she said.

[JLO]

Exactly Jaded! That unidentifed! DNA. Who's was that? We never heard, did we?

Also, I never heard the real story about the bullet casing found in her bedroom ever get explained away in court testimony. How weird is THAT? A shell casing in the bedroom found days later (but we didn't hear about that in court, either, did we?).

Seems like reasonable doubt to me - amongst many, many, many! other things that had no logic to me and we never got to hear the truth about alot of other stuff.

The prosecuter objected, the judge agreed. The defense objected, the judge overruled.

That's what I saw anyway. Very biased, opinioned judge. Yes, he was friendly and ameniable to jurors. But, I was kinda 'body watching' when I viewed. Everytime he looked at DW, I thought I saw hate in Judge Mudd's eyes. Just my opinion, don't ya know, JLO

JLO

[connectthedots]

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.

Another point just occured to me. If the date the body was diposed of was the 'latest date rather than the 'earliest date', 'mummification' would not be an issue, would it? 'Mummification' was argued by the prosecution because they had to push the date the body was dispoed of to a time much closer to Feb 4 or 5. If mid-Fed was merely the latest date rather than the earliest date, the prosecution would have had absolutely no reason to argue mummification.

Maybe what the juror meant by his comments is that he believed the mummification arguments were sufficient to push the date the body was disposed back to early February. If so, he either mis-spoke or was mis-quoted.

[Freedom2specul8]

"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."

the mummification, as described by the anthropologist happens very very quickly on a small child Danielle's size. His theory, and it seems most logical, is that a rodent chewed threw the mummified skin allowing the insects to enter in an unnatural opening. This is also the only logical answer for there to not be any blood/fluids settling under the body. That was witnessed by all the experts either by direct observation or by pictures/testimony. A normal body just dumped, and if it decomposed normally, would have had fluid beneath it, and the skin wouldn't have been dehyrated/mummified like hers was.. I have to hit the hay...will check in tomorrow sometime. take care and good night.