Posted on 09/16/2002 1:46:27 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
Death
Whatever logic there might be in his theory, can a reasonable person conclude that it would be approximately ten days before a rodent would start to chew on the body? I don't think so!
In this case, there is no shortage of unanswered questions. Too many if you ask me. I can see why the jurors would dismiss the bug testimony if they thought it established that the body was diposed no later than mid-February. Heck, if that's all it did, I would have said the bug testimony was not relevant. If the bug testimony was that the body was disposed of in mid-February (which I am confident was the testimony of Faulkner and at least two of the other three), the bugs were very strong evidence in favor of DW.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. For now, DW is guilty and it is on to the appellate courts for review of several issues. Just don't be surprised if he is granted a new trial, but I am certainly not holding my breath, either.
A factual response. My apologies Kim, and to you Valpad (if I mis-stated something).
But frankly it doesn't invalidate the problem with the hair in the sink drain. If it had been there for any length of time, in this case 3-4 months since it had been in the neighborhood, it would have be degraded and unidentifiable by water, soap, grease in the drain. So why was a fresh hair in the sink if she wasn't in it that weekend?
If this hair was "fresh", how is it the search dogs from the SDPD and the FBI didn't hit on Danielle's scent ?
And why just one (1) hair from her head (or pillow) ?
Think it thru: 1 hair, 1 spot on the carpet, 1 smear on the jacket.
A large man (like DAW) 210 lb on top of a 50 lb virginal girl ...
Only a 1 inch "blood"-stain on the jacket ? Did he force her onto the the jacket ? Does that work with the DA's Bang-bang-bang arguement ?
I'm sorry, I don't see the evidence that jives with the crime.
Then, I'll have to go on to the 4 bug-guys ...
Do you people feel that Dusek truly believes that DW is guilty? I think he does.The actions of the DA and the LE investigators indicate that all concerned from the get-go knew that DW was innocent and a frame-up was required.
One of the LE forensic guys testified that investigative policy was changed, just for this case, to use polaroid instead of 35mm. The only reasons that would have been done was to diminish the quality of the photo and to prevent negatives being made available to the defense.
The drastic changes between the LE statements to the media at the start of the frame-up, and their testilies in the PH are more evidence of major fabrication. Evidence presented during the trial by the prosecution (fibers could or could not be from the same source; could or could not actually be blood; the dog might or might not have alerted - but not recognized for three weeks) served more to prove DW's innocence, than support any possibility of his guilt.
What this trial has shown, unequivocally, is that DNA evidence is easily fabricated, that crime scenes are easily cross-contaminated, and that LE and prosecutors are not nearly as concerned with finding real criminals as much as they are with winning at all costs. Such obvious corruption of LE and the judicial process as shown in this trial, is more detrimental to society in the long term than the original crime. Many future (valid) cases could be tossed out using references to the handling of this case.
Most of the hang'em high mob skipped all the crucial defense evidence (which coincidentally was also denied to the jury).
Kimmie now wants to connect the scratches on DW's arm to Danielle, when her own mother testified that she bit her nails down to nothing, and therefore couldn't have left those marks. Dusek apparently recognized this as conflicting, and didn't pursue it.
The fact that the two detectives had previously been caught fabricating evidence was also kept from the jury. It's only a coincidence these two guys had been everywhere the evidence was magically being found two weeks later.
Hey, one spot is all a professional needs. Besides, it's hard to reconstitute a whole puddle of DNA stains from a few old stains found at her home.
Thanks for pointing that out.
If DAW tossed her out on Deshau Road, maybe, Sat nite or Sun morning ... Then how did he prevent Danielle's body from becoming a "decompose naturally" corpse ?
And who was singing "Shoo fly -don't bother me" until 12 days later ?
You might not be able to live with your own conscience if you admitted differently. That the prosecution DOES have a lot of room, even in this country, to play the judge and jury like a violin, and some are very trained musicians.
Why were they even permitted to remain on the police force after that?
Maybe "hard" but not impossible. There was an entire series on these threads about how "perfect" a match was made of the DNA from the panties and the DNA on the carpet and jacket. Like maybe it came from the same "whole puddle". Just maybe.
What bugs me about this, was anything determined about how rare or common those fibers were? It strikes me, an engineer, as an unscientific pursuit without doing that. I would not be willing to take an expert's mere word for it without also seeing the science. (But again I doubt the theory of evolution LOL)
Perhaps not.
'Kay, Throw a 60 lb carcass in the back of your pick-up, then drive 300 miles.
Toss in the yard. Start watch --Same results. Eh ?
This mummification stuff is bogusification ...
The bug-guys had it right. IMO
According to his niece he was massaging her gums and teeth when she was younger and when she woke up SHE BIT HIM as hard as she could. This guy has been a menace to society for a lot longer than anyone realized or cared to believe. This time he got caught and WILL PAY THE ULTIMATE PRICE. It's not revenge it's called JUSTICE.
This bugs me too. I'd rather a jury see every fact possible about a case and the trustworthiness of those presenting evidence, where the judge can offer his opinion to the jury about its relevance without denying them the right to see it. That sword cuts both ways: how many genuinely guilty offenders get off because of some court ruling that says some fact about their previous history doesn't matter.
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.