Skip to comments.
Van Dam Case Witness Challenges Findings Of Defense 'Bug Expert': But...His Testimony Don't Add Up..
Union Tribune ^
| July 31, 2002
| Jeff Dillion
Posted on 07/30/2002 3:58:51 PM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 581-593 next last
To: UCANSEE2
301
posted on
07/31/2002 1:50:35 PM PDT
by
demsux
To: cyncooper
"You need to accept that some viewers of the trial see it the way they do because of the evidence, not because the media told them to think a certain way."
What about the uninitiated that aren't following the trial, or even reading the transcripts? The ones that get their 60 second dose from local news stations at night? The Bill O'Reilly's that made up their minds after 45 seconds? Those are the people that the media will sway, and I honestly think that there are many many MORE of them than there are of us.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I guess I just misinterpreted. It makes more sense now that the fiber pictures are on the left. But it's still not clear to me which two fibers they are showing a comparison of.. Is the orange necklace fiber on the left or right??
My original question was of the two photo's from Post #9 and which was which.. Is Danielle's orange fiber on left or right?
303
posted on
07/31/2002 1:51:34 PM PDT
by
juzcuz
To: cyncooper
Do you remember whether or not the jury heard dw say he downloaded the child porn? We keep hearing that it was said..but haven't read it on that particular transcript either.
To: UCANSEE2
Now the background thing is really bothering me. Why are there two different colored backgrounds at all? Wasn't Jennifer Shen the one doing the testing on both of these fibers? Wouldn't she have looked at them on the same piece of equipment (microscope, camera, etc.)? Why, then, would the background color of these two photos be any different at all? Makes me suspicious, I tell ya. I mean, she was comparing the way the fibers looked, among other things - if you don't have an equal starting point, how can you tell whether they actually look the same or not? Especially on these fibers that appear to be somewhat translucent.
To: small_l_libertarian
Ah, we are but common mortals, not affiliated with SDPD.
I know I'm a bit, well, snarky today. PS. I don't think they look the same either.
306
posted on
07/31/2002 1:52:28 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: small_l_libertarian
I agree, and judging from the background change on the right side the red/orange has been turned way up on the right side to make the colors match!
To: juzcuz
It's a good question...I just don't know and couldn't find the answer to that question. Sorry I couldn't help you more.
To: John Jamieson
Again, prosecution trying to connect dots that aren't even there.
To: John Jamieson; Jaded; UCANSEE2
Thanks, guys. It's good to know it's not just my eyes.
To: demsux
Your 288 post.
I do agree with you. The Vdams treated her disappearance about the same as a missing puppy. And that just goes to show how very, very mentally immature both the Vdams are.
To: Krodg
According to the Preliminary Hearing transcipts here is what Damon testified to DUSEK:
Dusek: Q. Did you have any plans for the weekend?
A. I originally had plans for the weekend that I canceled.
Q. What were the original plans?
A. To go snowboarding with my son.
Q. Where were you going to go?
A. Big Bear.
Q. Were you going to go with anyone?
A. With--yes. Bill Libby.
Q. And anybody -- was he going to bring anybody along?
A. His son Derrick and his friend Patrick.
Q. How long were you going to go up there for?
A. Just for a day.
Q. What happened to the plans?
A. Actually --
THE COURT: Take your time.
THE WITNESS: I believe the original plans were to not go with Bill, and we changed the plans to going with Bill on Sunday instead of going on Saturday. It's kind of hazy now.
Dusek: Q. All right. Do you remember why the trip was delayed a day?
A. Because Bill wanted to go Sunday. I think I was going to go along Saturday, and then Bill wanted to go Sunday. So we changed it to going Sunday with Bill.
I didn't read Feldman's cross, this was bad enough..
sw
312
posted on
07/31/2002 1:57:46 PM PDT
by
spectre
To: UCANSEE2
I don't think it makes a huge difference for the scientists themselves. It's like comparing a dna sample made from 3 yrs ago, to a current sample. The make-up of the fiber sample/dna sample would still be usable regardless of how it's attached to the slide..right?
To: demsux
I think that's a different Bill Libby.
314
posted on
07/31/2002 1:58:11 PM PDT
by
mommya
To: small_l_libertarian
Now the background thing is really bothering meWe may not haev any idea what the orginal's look like. The examiner would have seen orginal's in microscope. Then a photo was taken apparently for example merely for demonsrating the evidence, I believe the Jury will have actual slides available if they desire. Further, assuming we are looking at photos these photos had to be scanned.
In order to say anything definitive about comparing them we have to state the light, background and distance etc was exactly the same AND we have to make the same claim about the scans so we can view them on computer. Plus if they are not direct scans of original photo we may be viewing a press photo of a photo.
But what do I know, I can't match my clothes.
To: VRWC_minion
That is true - we have no idea what it is that we're actually looking at. I hope that the jury does have something besides this photo to look at.
To: UCANSEE2
If this was a modern video binocular microscope there would seperate color "adjustments" of each side. I think the backgrounds were the same white until somebody made the dull orange fiber "match" the the bright orange fiber better.
To: spectre
THE WITNESS: I believe the original plans were to not go with Bill, and we changed the plans to going with Bill on Sunday instead of going on Saturday. It's kind of hazy now. Now that's interesting...IF he was going to go on Saturday, why would that have conflicted with Bren's night out in the first place.
318
posted on
07/31/2002 2:03:53 PM PDT
by
demsux
To: small_l_libertarian
. That kind of defeats the purpose of comparing the two, doesn't it?Gee, it's almost as if it was done on purpose to fool the jury!
NAH, the prosecution wouldn't falsify evidence just to win the case would they?
The police wouldn't lie just to obtain a search warrant, would they ?
To: mommya
I think that's a different Bill Libby.Do you say that due to the "Yuba City" tag?
320
posted on
07/31/2002 2:05:15 PM PDT
by
demsux
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 581-593 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson