Skip to comments.
Frustrated Prosecutor Dusek Swats At Final Bug Expert: Westerfield's Soon Will BUG The Jury....
Court TV ^
| August 2, 2002
| Harriet Ryan
Posted on 08/01/2002 10:25:00 PM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 741-745 next last
To: Krodg
When the OJ trial came up everyone screamed 'He's Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!!!!'. When the murders happened my first thought was "no way" did OJ Simpson commit those murders.
After seeing the evidence against him I concluded he did, in fact, do it. Nothing in the intervening years has ever occurred to change my opinion. Just the opposite.
To: dread78645
Neal lied. Either in court or to LE. Told LE he did watch porn on his father's computer and then testified in court that he did not.
I'm still curious regarding Damon and a supposed girlfriend in the neighborhood. Was that story just a rumor or is it in the evidence somewhere? Anyone know? Thanks.
To: John Jamieson
I'm glad you understood what I was saying. I want so much to believe in 'Justice for all' because I don't know when something like this could happen to me. As much as I didn't like being a victim, I don't know if I could handle being convicted for a crime I didn't do.
363
posted on
08/02/2002 11:02:46 PM PDT
by
Krodg
To: alexandria
The VD's think about it this way, we've told them they are not supposed to go on/into other peoples property but they did it anyway. Actually I've never heard the VDs say they told their children anything. They always ask their kids to do or not to do things. I suppose that's the new age parenting though. You treat them like little adults and then wonder why they expect to be able to act like adults. Go figger.
364
posted on
08/02/2002 11:03:55 PM PDT
by
Karson
To: alexandria
That does make sense!!
365
posted on
08/02/2002 11:06:55 PM PDT
by
Krodg
To: cyncooper
That's fine by me. I only brought OJ up in context of how I reacted after an abusive relationship and my reaction to jury decisions.
366
posted on
08/02/2002 11:12:23 PM PDT
by
Krodg
To: John Jamieson; All
JJ..This is a silly little example..but...stay with it for a moment..
Last night, our cat was out front...playing with a really large moth...about the size of a Hummingbird...this morning...I went to get the paper...and the moth was on the porch...mostly intact, but deceased...(if moths do that!)
Anyway....this evening, 12 hours later, when we were coming in from Dinner...I observed that a lot of ants were all over the moth..and when I kicked the moth off the porch with my shoe..there were many more ants under the moth...
Point being...the BUG GUY commented that only 1 ant was on little Danielle...just 1...but this scenario I gave on the moth...it goes the opposite way...the ants were increasing...as more and more arrived to engage the moth...
Since there was a significant portion of the body left at the Dehasa Road...with only the hands and face mummified...then many ants would have been present...
If temperature mattered, then there would have been NO ants, correct?
Or...if the body was refrigerated...and it dehydrated from the dehumidification which occurs in a refrigerated environ...then perhaps there was a very dried out corpse, which the insect population found little interest in?
Unscientific..yes...but based upon the moth observation described above...a few more thoughts to ponder
FDA
To: I. Ben Hurt
If DW walks, which I think he will, I think the fight will really be out of both LE and the prosecution. Some will say DW did it and got away with with it because of a bad jury, judge, or slimmy lawyer. They will blame anyone but themselves for bringing a premature case.
The prosecution thought they had it in the bag, until the body showed up and ruined their case. It was in the wrong place! It was supposed to be out at Glamis! Even worse, it hadn't been there long enough for DW to have put it there! The body has probably saved DW.
I think a tremendous amount of interpersonal relationship information has been withheld from us. In my mind either DW or the VDs or some of the 6 pack, were somehow involved in the international child porno PRODUCTION ring lead by local creep, Brooke L. Rowland. LE may already suspect that and just allow Mr. Rowland to pay through his other sins.
I don't expect another trial at all, but there will be many books explaining this case. I think most will say that Rowland killed her just before dumping her body on the 14th.
I hate to think how Danielle suffered.
To: I. Ben Hurt
Local girlfriend, rumor only...stand by for the only posted info on it...
To: I. Ben Hurt
Barb knows and she ain't talkin'.
To: Krodg; All
I'm reading transcripts from today's hearings. What does the word "CALJIC" mean?
371
posted on
08/02/2002 11:16:29 PM PDT
by
Karson
To: FresnoDA
But Fres, was your moth mummified???
372
posted on
08/02/2002 11:18:02 PM PDT
by
Krodg
To: John Jamieson
I agree, John. Barb knows plenty and she will publish the book that outsells all the rest, don't you think?
373
posted on
08/02/2002 11:18:55 PM PDT
by
Karson
To: John Jamieson
The body has probably saved DW. I don't have your great mind, but I have been thinking that for days. Thank you for saying it.
374
posted on
08/02/2002 11:21:58 PM PDT
by
Krodg
To: Karson
CALJIC 6th EDITION REVIEW
6TH EDITION REVIEW ... A WORK IN PROGRESS
The initial phase of FORECITE's 6th Edition Review is now complete. Subscribers have been provided with a 149 page compendium which chronicles the hundreds of changes made in the 6th Edition.
FORECITE's review also identifies and summarizes over 220 potential trial and/or appellate issues based on the CALJIC changes.
To: Karson
Yes, unless she's iced first.
To: John Jamieson
Making the corrections for Goff's minor math errors, makes little difference in his conclusions. Each man tried to do a better job of widening the interval to see if the prosecution's theory of the crime could work, and yet all concluded that it COULD NOT. John, I agree with you.
Forensic Entomology deserves a standing alongside fibre and finger-print evidence.
All three are statistically-bound, ready for re-testing, and repeatable.
I only hope this bad case doesn't make good science un-acceptable in court.
To: dread78645
It may do just the opposite, many people may see that it cleared an innocent man, but just as easily could have convicted a guilty one. It's a very valuable tool.
To: Karson
I think John just answered you, but I didn't understand. Sorry. I think they are referring to CA jury instruction codes. Better talk to John about this.
379
posted on
08/02/2002 11:32:14 PM PDT
by
Krodg
To: I. Ben Hurt
Neal lied. Either in court or to LE. Yes, it seems that he did. I have no idea why.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 741-745 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