Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: VRWC_minion
hard physical evidence cannot be explained

It is indirect circumstantial evidence and it has been very reasonably explained. The fibers by reasonable doubt as to the matchup, and that fibers easily could have come from other sources. The fiber is also explained -- if they demonstrated to match beyond a reasonable doubt, which they have not -- by direct or secondary contact between Brenda and Westerfield on the dance floor, or by ANY of the visits of Brenda and Danielle to the house, or by an entirely reasonably plausible sneak visit of Danielle into the motorhome in any of the many months more than a year it was available to neighborhood kids to do so. The last also explains the DNA-bearing spots, or those could be explained by deliberate -- and felonious -- evidence contamination.

The many irregularities in police procedure give some reasonable credence to the felonious police work possibility, but even that possibility is not necessary to reasonably explain the DNA spots and the hair.

Further the exceptional agreement of the bug experts in determining the most likely date the body was dropped -- when Westerfield was under a high degree of police scrutiny. Ignoring that -- as to reasonable doubt -- is an egregious violation of a juror's sworn duty

105 posted on 08/02/2002 12:12:38 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]


To: bvw
The only problem with the "HARD EVIDENCE", is that it's not evidence of MURDER or KIDNAPPING. It's the kind of evidence that all of us have around our homes and vehicles and don't even know about.
110 posted on 08/02/2002 12:30:51 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: bvw
I understand the arguments against Westerfields guilt probably as well as anyone. I just have come to a conclusion different than you.

At this time, I would expect that the jury will be divided and the fact that the pros. didn't get a more definitive argument against the bug guys it will leave the ability for some Juror's to hold out against a guilty verdict. My best guess is that at this time there will be a hung jury. If, so I believe the pros will be better prepared to put the bugs on trail at a later date or a deal would be made (still possible). Keep in mind that it was Feldman who hasten process as an advantage to his client which in retrospect has worked well.

The things that would change the status is 1. The jury instructions on how to weigh the meaning of "reasonable doubt" and 2. The ability of Dusek to weave together the evidence into an air tight scenario backed by the evidence and testimony.

I also predict that in the event he is found guilty by the jurors the folks who feel Westerfield is innocent will claim that the jurors were deceived (or possibly intimidated) by a corrupt judge and a corrupt prosecutor and that Westerfield never had a chance to a fair trial.

I predict that those who think Westerfileld is guily will blame it mostly on bad science and the speed that the trial took place and make references to the OJ trial.

FWIW, before the OJ jury gave its verdict I thought that the jury wouldn't convict him based on the trial. I thought OJ had reasonable doubt even though I thought he was guilty.

113 posted on 08/02/2002 12:44:03 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: bvw
It is indirect circumstantial evidence and it has been very reasonably explained.

Great post, right on target.
I think what further proves this circumstantial evidence point is that Dusak himself ADMITS that theirs is a case based mostly on circumstantial evidence of felony murder, when he was stating why there could not be a lesser charge.

167 posted on 08/02/2002 2:13:49 PM PDT by alexandria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: bvw
DITTOs to your whole assesment.

IMO: There are government employees involved in this case who need to swing(in the literal sense) for what they have done, and CA law makes it possible if it can be proven.

The truth will out.

175 posted on 08/02/2002 3:16:44 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson