Okay, it's Dusek Time once again, so get ready to count the lies and misrepresentations. Today the topic is ALIBI, focusing on Dr. Hall and Dr. Goff, so you know Dusek will be lying his ass off.
I've included Goff for comparison value, since Dusek doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the man in any positive way. He is much more interested in making Dr. Hall out to be a liar who is "hiding something", despite the fact that Goff and Hall basically agree on the one data set Goff used.
News articles reported the jurors "rolling their eyes" and "loudly exhaling" after Hall's responses at the end of Dusek's cross-exam. Furthermore, in interviews after the trial, Hall was labeled as "just not believable" by the jurors.
FROM DR. GOFF'S TESTIMONY ON JULY 30, 2002
8968, 8970
22 MR. DUSEK: SO THAT'S THE RANGE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO GIVE US
23 BASED UPON THE DATA AT SINGING HILLS?
24 DR. GOFF: BASED ON SINGING HILLS.
1 Q. SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DATES MEAN, WHAT DO THE
2 DATES REFER TO THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US HERE? FEBRUARY 12TH?
3 A. FEBRUARY 12TH REFERS TO THE PERIOD OF TIME WHERE AT
4 BOTH 16.1 AND 23 DEGREES CELSIUS THE MAGGOTS WOULD HAVE REACHED
5 THE BEGINNING OF THE THIRD INSTAR.
FROM DR. HALL'S TESTIMONY ON AUGUST 1, 2002
MR. DUSEK: NOW COULD YOU GIVE US THE DATE FOR 16.1?
DR. HALL: ...66.3 WOULD HAVE EQUATED TO ABOUT THE 13TH OF FEBRUARY USING ANDERSON'S DATA AT 16.1 DEGREES.
Q. WHAT DATE WOULD YOU GET FOR 23 DEGREES NOW?
A. ...FROM ANDERSON'S DATA AT 23 DEGREES WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 68.6 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS AT A BASE 10 TO REACH THE THIRD INSTAR.
AND ACCORDING TO THE TEMPERATURES AT SINGING HILLS,...THERE WERE 66.4 DEGREES ACCUMULATED OVER THE 13TH AND 71.4 OVER THE 12TH....SO I WOULD PUT THAT ON THE 13TH ALSO.
Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WOULD? ISN'T THERE SOME COMPUTATION THAT GIVES YOU A FINAL DATE?
A. I JUST GAVE IT. I JUST DID.
Q. YOU SAID YOU WOULD GIVE US THE 13TH OF FEBRUARY. YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THESE FLIES DEVELOP AT THE SAME RATE REGARDLESS OF THE TEMPERATURE?
A. NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
Q. ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THE STUDIES UPON WHICH YOU RELY SHOW THAT THE FLIES DEVELOP AT 16 DEGREES AT THE SAME RATE AS THEY DO AT 23 DEGREES?
A. NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
Q. DO THEY DEVELOP AT DIFFERENT RATES?
A. THEY DEVELOP AT DIFFERENT RATES.
Q. AND IF THEY DEVELOP AT DIFFERENT RATES, SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE DIFFERENT TIMES WHEN THEY ENTER THE THIRD INSTAR?
FROM DUSEK'S CLOSING ARGUMENT AUG. 6, 2002
9389 - 9390
18 WE GET TO DR. GOFF AND DR. HALL, AND BASICALLY THEY
19 DID WHAT YOU'D WANT AN EXPERT TO DO IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH
20 ROBERT HALL TRIED TO HIDE IT. AND BY THAT I'M SUGGESTING THIS.
25 ...YOU BRING IN AN EXPERT AND WHAT DO YOU WANT HIM
26 TO DO? LET'S GIVE ME ALL OF THE INFORMATION SO YOU FOLKS WILL
27 HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION TO DECIDE. COMPUTE IT FOR BOTH
28 FLIES...
1 COMPUTE IT FOR SINGING HILLS TEMPERATURES. COMPUTE IT FOR BROWN
2 FIELD TEMPERATURES AND COMPUTE IT FOR THE VARYING OTHER
3 TEMPERATURES WITH KAMAL, GREENBURG AND ANDERSON....
4 ...EXPLAIN THOSE ANSWERS. LET THE JURY KNOW WHY ONE YOU
5 THINK IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER...
6 THAT'S WHAT DR. GOFF DID. HE GAVE US SINGING HILLS. HE GAVE US
7 BROWN FIELD. HE GAVE US THE TIME PERIODS.
8 I THINK THE NUMBERS ON THE RIGHT...
9 ...WERE ALL OF THE TIMES BASED UPON HIS CALCULATIONS WHICH WERE
10 NOT AFFECTED BY HIS MATH ERRORS IS WHEN THEY ENTERED THAT THIRD
11 IN-STAR PERIOD. THE NUMBER ON THE LEFT BASED UPON HIS
12 CALCULATION IS WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE COMMITTED THE THIRD IN-STAR
13 PERIOD...
15 ...THEY WERE AT 17.2
16 WHEN 18 WAS THE END OF THE LINE. THEY'RE ALMOST THERE. AND YOU
17 START THAT PHASE AT 11 MILLIMETERS, I THINK IT WAS. SO THEY HAD
18 ALREADY REACHED IT. ALMOST A MILLIMETER A DAY COULD GET THROUGH
19 THAT NINE-DAY PERIOD...
25 DR. GOFF DID WHAT YOU'D WANT AN EXPERT TO DO...
Even though Dusek mentions "KAMAL, GREENBURG AND ANDERSON"
Goff only uses temperature data from Anderson.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR. FELDMAN: YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU USED ANDERSON, RIGHT?
DR. GOFF: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BECAUSE ANDERSON IS A 2000 STUDY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IN YOUR VIEW ANDERSON IS MORE RELIABLE OR MORE
ACCURATE THAN KAMAL.
A FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WHERE THE TEMPERATURES
AT WHICH SHE REARED THE FLIES ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE
TEMPERATURES WITH WHICH WE'RE WORKING, I REGARD HER DATA AS
BEING MORE RELIABLE.
Q BUT WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR BOOK, YOU RELIED UPON KAMAL,
DIDN'T YOU?
A YES. MY BOOK WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO ANDERSON'S DATA.
Q WELL, YOUR BOOK WAS WRITTEN UTILIZING THE KAMAL DATA
I THINK HAS BEEN AROUND YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT SINCE THE
FIFTIES. RIGHT?
A 1958 WAS THE PUBLICATION DATE.
Q SO...YOUR EXPERIENCE AND
WHATEVER IT TOOK YOU TO WRITE THE BOOK RELIED UPON THAT DATA
THAT'S HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERGO PEER REVIEW FOR
APPROXIMATELY A HALF A CENTURY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THE ANDERSON DATA HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW AS HAS KAMAL, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A NO.
Q THERE'S ALSO GREENBERG DATA THAT -- DID YOU CONSIDER
IN YOUR REPORT, SIR?
A I LOOKED AT THE DATA IN GREENBERG, 1991, AND THE DATA
THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE HE PRESENTS IN A VERY
UNUSUAL FORM AS BEING AVERAGE MINIMUMS. AND THIS DOESN'T
REALLY DELIMIT WHAT IT IS WE'RE LOOKING AT AND TEMPERATURES FOR
VARYING WERE DIFFERENT.
In regards to Dr. Gail Anderson's data, in 1998 she authored a paper in which she examined an actual case and her findings then were quite a bit different.
In that report she stated it took 10 days at 15 degrees Celsius for a Regina fly to reach the end of the third instar. This new report states it would now take 18 days at 15 degrees Celsius.
This method of determining elapsed time since death using insect evidence can be demonstrated using an actual case. Human remains were found in mid October (October 12th)...All sizes of larvae were collected and three pupae. These were pale in colour so had only just pupated. No puparia were found. The mean temperature at the death site was 15oC.
Using the same techniques for Phormia regina, the oldest specimens of which were in the pupal stage when collected, it was calculated that Phormia regina was oviposited no later than 3 October.
9390 - 9392
27 ...CONTRARY TO DR. HALL...
1 ...WE HEARD...FEBRUARY 12 THROUGH 23,
2 THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD....
4 ...HE DID THE COMPUTATIONS FOR BOTH FLIES,
5 FOR SINGING HILLS AND HE TOLD US ALSO FOR BROWN FIELD.
6 HE SAID HE DID THE COMPUTATION FOR ENTERING THE
7 THIRD IN-STAR AND FOR EXITING THE THIRD IN-STAR BUT DECIDED --
8 THE DEFENSE DECIDES YOU GUYS DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW THAT...
14 ALL YOU FOLKS NEED TO KNOW, ACCORDING TO DR. HALL,
15 IS THAT FEBRUARY 12TH TO 23RD DATE. YOU GUYS PROBABLY CAN'T
16 FIGURE OUT THE REST OF THE STUFF. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT IT WE CAN
17 FIGURE IT OUT REAL EASY. WE CAN SEE THAT IT TAKES NINE DAYS TO
18 GET FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THAT THIRD IN-STAR PERIOD.
19 WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. WE CAN SEE HOW DOWN THROUGH UNDER
20 ANDERSON AT 16 DEGREES, THE APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE...
21 THE 61 DEGREES WHICH WAS EVEN A LITTLE HIGH FOR THE AVERAGE AT
22 SINGING HILLS, ENTERS THE THIRD IN-STAR ON FEBRUARY 13TH.
You might want to pause and take a breath because Dusek is loading up
a whopper that you don't want to miss.
You ready? Dusek continues...
24 DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO IT. HE GAVE YOU A MOUTHFUL OF ALL THE
25 NUMBERS, ALL OF THE THERMAL UNITS, ALL OF THE COMPUTATIONS BUT
26 ...HE DIDN'T PUT A DATE AND HE'D
27 ASK YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME. YEAH, SURE.
28 IF HE'D HAVE PUT A DATE THERE HE KNOWS HIS CLIENT WOULD BE
1 GUILTY. HE KNOWS THE PROMISE WOULD HAVE BEEN BROKEN. THAT'S
2 WHY HE DIDN'T PUT HIS DATE THERE. AND INSTEAD, WE HEAR FEBRUARY
3 12TH THROUGH 23RD. JEEZ, HOW DO WE EVEN GET THAT? WHERE IS THE
4 12TH UP THERE? ARE YOU JUST MAKING THAT UP? HE COULDN'T FIGURE
5 IT OUT. THANK GOODNESS HE WAS THE LAST ONE TO TESTIFY AFTER WE
6 HAD A CHANCE TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY ELSE.
The date Dusek is talking about does not exist, due to Anderson's data being so far out of whack with all the other temperature studies in her field.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR. DUSEK: WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THE EXITING THE THIRD INSTAR UNDER ANDERSON'S DATA WHICH USES TEMPERATURES IN THE 60-DEGREE OR 61-DEGREE RANGE?
DR. HALL: WELL, I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU WITH THE PHORMIA REGINA I CALCULATED THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE AT 16.1 DEGREES ABOUT 93.4 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS AT A BASE 10...
AT 23 DEGREES HER DATA WOULD REFLECT 103.8 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS AT BASE 10.
AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THERMAL ENERGY AVAILABLE AT SINGING HILLS WAS 86.9
SO WITH ANDERSON'S DATA SET THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT ENERGY FOR THE FLIES TO GET OUT OF THE THIRD INSTAR.
9394
10 THE SECOND CATEGORY OF WITNESSES THAT HELPED DETERMINE A TIME OF
11 DEATH AS WE WERE TOLD TO CHECK WITH, DR. BLACKBOURNE, A FORENSIC
12 PATHOLOGIST, A FELLOW WHO DID THE AUTOPSY. HE'S THE MEDICAL
13 DOCTOR. HE SAW HER BODY. HE SAW THE CONDITION IT WAS IN, HOW
14 BADLY SHE WAS MUMMIFIED. YOU DON'T NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN.
15 THAT'S NOT A FRESH KILL. THAT TOOK A WHILE TO GET THERE. THAT
16 IS NOT A BODY THAT'S OUT THERE FOR LESS THAN A WEEK.
17 ON THE 23RD WE HEARD FROM DR. HALL, AND AFTER IT
18 HAD BEEN OUT THERE FOUR DAYS TO GET TO THAT CONDITION. DR.
19 BLACKBOURNE TOLD YOU THAT. HIS ESTIMATE NECESSARILY BROUGHT TEN 20 DAYS TO SIX WEEKS.
21 ...THAT DOESN'T SATISFY THE PROMISE, THE
22 IMPOSSIBILITY THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU. DR. BLACKBOURNE COULDN'T
23 USE THE STANDARD TEST TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH BECAUSE SHE WAS
24 SO OLD, SO MUMMIFIED, SO FAR GONE.
Here is another Dusek fabrication. He states that Dr. Hall said the body had been out at the dumpsite for 4 days. Since the fly larvae was in the third instar, Dr. Hall was giving the range of dates, from beginning to end. Feb. 23rd was the beginning according to Kamal's data set. Everyone had already agreed that the larvae were near the end.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR.DUSEK: LET'S GO BACK TO KAMAL'S DATA THERE ON THE REGINA FLY. ENTERS THE THIRD INSTAR AT FEBRUARY 23RD, CORRECT?
DR. HALL: ...WHEN YOU SAY IT ENTERS THE THIRD INSTAR ON FEBRUARY 23RD, THAT CAN BE CONFUSING. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT...IN THE AMOUNT OF TEMPERATURE REFLECTED BY THE WEATHER STATION AT SINGING HILLS, THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TEMPERATURE, IN OTHER WORDS, 32.7 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO KAMAL, WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR PHORMIA REGINA TO HAVE ENTERED THE THIRD INSTAR IF THE EGGS HAD BEEN LAID AS LATE AS 23 FEBRUARY.
Q SO THE FLY HAD ALREADY PASSED THROUGH ALL OF THOSE OTHER STAGES IN FOUR DAYS?
A YES.
9617 - 9618
20 LET'S START WITH THE BUGS RIGHT NOW. THAT CHART IS
21 NOT RIGHT. THAT IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF WHAT THOSE PEOPLE
22 TALKED ABOUT, OF WHAT THEY SAID. IT'S SLICK. IT'S NICE. BUT
23 IT IS WRONG.
24 LEE GOFF, 9TH THROUGH THE 14TH OF FEBRUARY. I
25 DON'T THINK SO. LEE GOFF EXTENDED IT OUT HERE AT SINGING HILLS
26 TEMPERATURES FROM FEBRUARY 2ND THROUGH FEBRUARY 12TH, SINGING
27 HILLS. THAT'S GOT TO BE EXPANDED IF WE'RE GOING ON ALL THE
28 EVIDENCE, BOTH COMPUTATIONS AT BOTH TEMPERATURES AT SINGING
1 HILLS THE BEST TEMPERATURE.
2 DR. HALL, IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT CERTAINLY MATCHES
3 THE LITTLE TIMEFRAME HE PUT IN HIS REPORT AND HE TRIED TO STICK
4 TO, THE FEBRUARY 12TH THROUGH 23RD. BUT WHEN WE SAW HIS
5 CALCULATIONS, IF YOU RECALL, HE'S THE ONE THAT HE SAID HE DID
6 NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE THE CALCULATIONS...
7 ... BALONEY, HE HAD ENOUGH TIME...
8 ...TO DO IT IF HE WANTED TO. HE'S ONE THAT TELLS US NINE DAYS
9 FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THIRD IN-STAR. HE SAYS THAT
10 TAKES US BACK TO THE FIRST PART OF FEBRUARY.
11 WE'RE STARTING TO GET SOME CONCORDANCE NOW? YES,
12 WE ARE.
Did Goff say Feb. 2nd? Not Exactly. He came up with a new term, "PRIOR TO" Feb. 2nd.
That's what you say when your data just won't add up the way you want it to.
No matter, that jury could care less.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR. FELDMAN: ...YOU NOTE
THAT IT REQUIRES AT ...23 DEGREES CELSIUS
2492.1 HOURS. IS THAT RIGHT?
DR. GOFF: 23 DEGREES CELSIUS TO REACH THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE.
Q. ON FEBRUARY THE 2ND ON YOUR DATA YOU NOTE 2117.4
HOURS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, YES.
Q. ...YOU'RE TELLING US
THAT IN ORDER FOR...THE BUGS TO DEVELOP TO THE
PREPUPARIAL STAGE, THEY HAVE TO AGGREGATE A.D.H. B-10 HOURS IN
THE NUMBER OF 2492.1 BASED ON ANDERSON'S STUDIES. CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. HOWEVER, IN YOUR OWN WORK AND IN YOUR OWN EVALUATION,
YOU ONLY ACCUMULATED 2117.4 HOURS, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A YES.
Q. SO WOULDN'T THAT ADVANCE YOUR DAY FROM THE 2ND TO THE
1ST?
A. IN ALL PROBABILITY IF WE WERE USING THE 23 DEGREES
WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE IS AN APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE, YES.
Q IN FACT, AT 16 DEGREES YOU NEED 2242.4 HOURS, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q BUT YOU STILL DON'T REACH IT BECAUSE YOUR NUMBER
CONTINUES TO BE 2117.4, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
9620 - 9621
11 WE GET TO LEE GOFF. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT HIS
12 NUMBERS THEY GO BACK TO EARLY FEBRUARY....
13 ABSOLUTE ESTIMATE. MINIMUM EXPOSURE TO WHEN THE EGGS ARE LAID
14 ON THE BODY. AND HE'S THE ONE THAT STARTS EXPLAINING HEY, YOU
15 KNOW, EGGS ARE HERE IN THE STOMACH. SOMEBODY HAD TO GET TO THAT
16 BODY FIRST AND OPEN IT UP AND GIVE US A PLACE FOR THESE FLIES TO
17 GO. THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T GO TO THE HEAD...
22 SOMETHING WAS WRONG HERE. SOMETHING IS OUT OF THE
23 ORDINARY, AND WE KNOW IT'S THE WEATHER CONDITIONS AND THE DRYING
24 OF THIS YOUNG SMALL CHILD WHICH MADE HER UNATTRACTIVE UNTIL SHE
25 WAS OPENED UP...
2 HALL EVEN TELLS US THE SAME THING. HE MADE HIS
3 CALCULATIONS BEGINNING AND END OF THAT THIRD IN-STAR. WHERE HE
4 COMES UP WITH HIS 12 TO 23 DAY IT DOESN'T MATCH HIS COMPUTATIONS
5 ON ANY OF THEM. HOW COME THE BUGS WEREN'T IN THE HEAD? I DON'T
6 HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT. SURE, HE DID. HE DIDN'T WANT TO
7 GIVE IT TO YOU. EXPLANATION IS THE BODY WAS MUMMIFIED...
Of course there are very reasonable explanations for why the flies weren't in the head and below I have included one of them. After reading it you might see why Feldman would shy away from bringing this up in court and as for Dusek, well he is a liar after all.
The usual sites of oviposition on dead humans are natural openings. Even here there is preference. Blowflies will most often lay their eggs in the facial region, and more seldom in the genitoanal region. If there is a sexual assault prior to death, leading to bleeding in the genitoanal region, blowflies will be more likely to oviposit in these regions.
9636 - 9637
25 ...DR. HALL, CALLED TO THE
26 STAND ANOTHER LAWYER,...
27 HE DOESN'T MAKE THAT FINAL COMPUTATION. THAT LOWER RIGHT-HAND
28 CORNER. HE SAYS HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME. BALONEY. THAT'S
1 NOT THE EXCUSE...
2 ...HE HAD TIME TO DO...EVERY OTHER
3 COMPUTATION. BUT THE ONE THAT BURIES HIS CLIENT, HE DIDN'T DO.
4 THE ONE THAT TOTALLY REFUTES WHAT, TWO WEEKS OF TESTIMONY...
5 ...JEEZ, MAYBE THEY WON'T
6 FIGURE THIS ONE OUT. MAYBE THEY'LL JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS ON
7 MY REPORT. MAYBE I CAN BLOW THIS ONE BY HIM. BUT HE COULDN'T.
8 THAT'S THE QUALITY OF THE CASE YOU GOT FROM THE DEFENSE.
You may have noticed that Dusek kept repeating "NINE DAYS" over and over. Of course, being a Dusekian argument it is full of contradictions.
The problem with the argument is that Dusek states that it takes "NINE DAYS" to go from the beginning to the end of the third instar, using both Kamal (80 deg.) and Anderson's (61 deg.) data. Even though, according to Dusek, flies develop twice as fast using Kamal's. data set.
Here is the relevant testimony:
Q. KAMAL'S DATA IT TAKES NINE DAYS OR SO TO GET FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THIRD INSTAR, CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. AND ANDERSON IT TAKES APPROXIMATELY NINE DAYS TO GET FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THIRD INSTAR, WOULDN'T IT?
A. THAT'S WHAT THE DATA REFLECT, YES, SIR.
Q. AND IF WE TAKE NINE DAYS, GO BACK NINE MORE DAYS FROM FEBRUARY 13TH, WHAT DO WE GET TO?
A. YOU GET TO ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY.
NEXT: ALIBI - PART THREE, DR. HASKELL
I thought that guy was pretty credible.
Here's a link I found while reading your posts.
On Sept. 4, 2002, Dusek finally got to make the argument he had been waiting 8 months for. He was going to ask for DW to receive the Death Penalty.
What the jury heard was a kinder, gentler Dusek, seeing as that he had already secured a conviction and the jury was sure to give the DP to a child killer.
What was left exposed to those watching, without the cover of his usual sadistic meanness, was the pure unadulterated stupidity and social ineptness of this low class thug.
10509 - 10510
26 ...SUSAN L. AND HER
27 DAUGHTER, CHRISTINA GONZALES. WE HEARD FROM THEM I THINK
28 YESTERDAY. OBVIOUSLY STILL HAD FEELINGS FOR THE DEFENDANT. AND
1 HE HAD OPENED UP THEIR HOME -- HIS HOME TO CHRISTINA GONZALES
2 AND LET HER MOVE IN THERE FOR A FEW MONTHS. BUT AGAIN, HOW MUCH
3 IS THAT WORTH?
10 WE HEARD FROM CHRISTINA GONZALES, THAT SHE DID NOT
11 STAY IN THAT HOME AFTER HER MOTHER LEFT. SHE GOT OUT, TOO. SHE
12 LEFT. IF HE'S SUCH A BIG HEARTED GUY, WHY LEAVE? IN FACT, IF
13 HE'S SUCH A SAINT, WHY SHOULD SHE LEAVE? WHY SHOULD SHE TURN
14 HER BACK ON HIM, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS IT SOUNDED LIKE...
Dusek is so determined to counter ANY argument sparing DW's life that he is more than willing to make a complete ass out of himself. If a girls mother moved out of her boyfriend's home, what do you think people would say if the daughter stayed behind? What would the mother say?
According to Dusek, the daughter is turning her back on DW, for showing common sense, which is something completely alien to the social awkward DA.
10510 - 10511
19 WE COME TO THE LAST CATEGORY -- WELL, SECOND TO THE
20 LAST CATEGORY, AND THAT IS WHERE HE LEFT HIS FOOTPRINTS ON
21 SOCIETY, WHERE HE INVENTED DEVICES THAT IMPROVED THE LOT OF
22 MANKIND AND WOMANKIND, THAT HE WAS AN INVENTOR THAT IMPROVED
23 EVERYONE'S LIFE. WHAT HE GETS CREDIT FOR AND CERTAINLY HE DOES
24 GET CREDIT IS THAT HE HAD A JOB. HE WORKED. HE STAYED EMPLOYED
25 AND HE WAS APPARENTLY A GOOD EMPLOYEE, SOMEONE THAT OTHER PEOPLE
26 WOULD TAKE TO THEIR NEW COMPANY. HE GETS CREDIT FOR THAT. BUT
27 THAT IS REALLY WHAT EVERYONE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, ISN'T IT,
28 BEFORE WE GO OVERBOARD?...
3 BEFORE WE PUT HIM IN THE CATEGORY OF JONAS SALK AND
4 ANY ONE OF SIMILAR TYPES, UNDERSTAND WHAT HIS RESPONSIBILITY
5 WAS. HE HAD A JOB. HE WAS GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT. THE ASSIGNMENT
6 WAS TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT AND HE DID IT. AND APPARENTLY HE
7 DID HIS PART WELL. HE DID NOT SEEK OUT THE HUMANITARIAN
8 PROJECTS. THEY CAME HIS WAY. HE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD
9 HAVE DONE THEM. OTHERS COULD HAVE. OTHERS DID.
10 PERHAPS IT'S SIMILAR TO SOMEBODY WHO WORKS IN AN
11 AUTOMOTIVE FACTORY. YOU WORK ON THE ASSEMBLY LINE ASSEMBLING
12 CARS. ONE LINE OVER THERE IS ASSEMBLING STATION WAGONS. THE
13 OTHER LINE IS ASSEMBLING AMBULANCES. THEY'RE BOTH DOING THE
14 SAME WORK, AREN'T THEY? ONE JUST HAPPENS TO BE MAKING CARS, THE
15 OTHER ONE'S MAKING AMBULANCES. DO THE PEOPLE DOING THE
16 AMBULANCE, DO THEY GET ANY MORE CREDIT? I DON'T THINK SO.
17 THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB. AND HE GETS CREDIT FOR DOING HIS JOB
18 AND DOING IT WELL APPARENTLY. BUT A HUMANITARIAN? FAR SHORT,
19 FAR SHORT OF THAT.
Remember, Dusek is speaking to a jury of nitwits and must choose his analogies accordingly, I think. I know of no other way to explain how he could compare an inventor to some shlub who works on an assembly line. I don't care what he builds.
I wonder if Dusek actually allowed anyone besides a three-yr old to read this argument beforehand. You can really see Dusek's pre-DA employment history as a Class A pitching failure. He was forced to give up because there was no lower level he could sink to. So he became a DA where there is a judge, instead of an ump, who is always there for a friendly called third strike when Dusek throws yet another one in the dirt.
10513 - 10514
23 THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WHEN I SIT DOWN YOU WILL BE
24 ASKED TO SHOW MERCY FOR HIM, SYMPATHY FOR HIM, COMPASSION FOR
25 HIM. WHAT MERCY, COMPASSION, SYMPATHY DID HE SHOW ANYBODY. AND
26 HE HAD A CHANCE. HE HAD A CHANCE AS THAT WEEKEND PROGRESSED.
27 HE SHOWED HER ABSOLUTELY NO COMPASSION, NO MERCY, NO PITY. NONE
28 TO HER FAMILY, NONE TO ANYONE. HE HAD A CHANCE WHEN HE STOOD IN
1 FRONT OF THE TV CAMERAS AND GAVE THE INTERVIEW TO SHOW
2 COMPASSION, TO SHOW REMORSE. HE SHOWED ARROGANCE, CROOKEDNESS,
3 LIES. HE HAD A CHANCE WHEN HE SPOKE WITH PAUL REDDEN. YOU
4 COULD HEAR THE TONE OF HIS VOICE: I AM SMARTER THAN YOU. I CAN
5 BEAT YOU. I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME. HE
6 HAD A CHANCE TO SHOW COMPASSION AND MERCY AND SHOW SOME REMORSE
7 BUT HE SHOWED NONE. AND HE HAD TIME FROM FEBRUARY 2ND UNTIL HE
8 WAS ARRESTED, FEBRUARY 22ND. KNOCK ON THE VAN DAM'S DOOR. I'M
9 SORRY FOR WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH. CAN I BRING YOU A COOKIE,
10 CAN I BRING YOU A LUNCH, I'M SORRY FOR YOUR PAIN. DIDN'T EVEN
11 HAVE TO SAY HE DID IT. HE DIDN'T....
Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie?
Saving his most moronic utterance for last, Dusek does not disappoint with the his "Can I bring you a cookie" comment. Can you imagine if DW had actually done as Dusek suggested? In full view of the media DW goes over and says "Hi, Van Dams, just thought I stop by and say howdy. Oh, by the way, here is a cookie".