Posted on 08/01/2002 10:25:00 PM PDT by FresnoDA
"Q. Are you using these substrate controls to allow a later analyst to determine if the jacket itself has something in it, as opposed to the blood staining, providing any later genetic information?"
At any rate, just wanted to throw it your way.
Yes, the conversation took place later in the day and wasn't volunteered immediately. But it is not as you portray that he lied continuously for 17 straight hours about that.
Well, we disagree about drycleaning trip #1, certainly. Why would he readily remember trip #2 later and the police were able to confirm trip #2 and retrieve the clothes, but he never revealed trip #1. BTW, trip #2 seems to be his clothes from Friday night. He wanted them back Monday (same day service) but the cleaners said it was too late. He ran them over pretty much as soon as police left his house early afternoon of 2/4. Maybe he thought the police would find out what he was seen wearing Friday night and wanted to be able to present them to them, freshly cleaned?
What are your thoughts as to why he didn't tell police about calling his son about checking the house and subsequently telling them he found a door unlocked because *he* forgot to lock it?
The fact that the police went to the drycleaners with the ticket for trip #2 and were given the clothes that corresponded with that ticket only, then the drycleaners calling the police to say there were other items at their establishment that had been brought in earlier indicated that DW concealed that trip.
Surely you're not saying we are to discount his statements that have been introduced as evidence?
Thanks John, and I have pointed that out numerous times myself. However, I think it is fair to evaluate the statements that were submitted for the jury's consideration. I suppose a juror or jurors will agree with you to disregard.
He has very able defense counsel, as you know, and they have heard the whole thing. Any exculpable material would have been included at their insistance, I am sure.
I just read DVD's PH testimony and he said he let the dog out (not walked) using the sliding door. I have not compared to the trial testimony yet. What did you think was different?
You too.
I know you may have left already, but just to clarify, DW was asked specifically when he took the MH to Sherman's. He had a story about getting their real early and not wanting to disturb anybody so waiting to pull in. He was asked if he went anywhere while returning from his "camping" trip and Sherman's and he said "no". So that would be a lie, not just not revealing it, since he was asked point blank if he went anywhere.
Also, the unlocked/locked door deal on his return home Saturday afternoon, when he had had Neal check the house already is more than ommitting the conversation with Neal. I would conclude there was no unlocked door and he lied about that to the police.
It's a reach for anybody in any situation to answer after the fact why they did NOT do something. It would be more of a reach to speculate why someeone else did not do something.
If however your intellectual framework is to look at the situation from a presumption of innocence -- like a juror should and which I am trying to do -- then that is not even a question to be asked. Some such speculations might be considered in investigations and in general fact-findings, but even then be wary of them.
"The truth will out." Means to me that a concerted, conscientious and ethical search for the truth will have it in time, allowing Providence proper due. Generally I dislike negative specualtions such as this would be regarding Westerfield, but would -- I've obviously already employed them -- allow such negative speculations against actors who have demonstrated prior patterns of vile deception, wanton immorality, repeated theft or egregious violence.
It goes to learning how to swim with sharks. How do you id sharks in the first place -- by baiting them and see if they rise to it. IMO, the Van Dams are sharks. Contrast the Van Dams and the Smarts. (What a combination of names!)
I wonder what LE did not know to ask about? Obviously, if Barb had not "ratted them out", we probably would still not know about the drug use and perversion.
Do you think it's ok if I leave the hose out while I'm gone...maybe I'll leave the sprinkler on, just in case
I agree to beginning with the presumption of innocence. However, in evaluating Westerfield's statements I am perceiving some lies.
Unless he borrowed Stealth Ninja Dave's invisiblity cloak and ruby slippers -- he's pretty well alibied (page 8451, line 23).
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.