Posted on 08/06/2002 8:53:49 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Interesting. I read about this a couple of years ago,and I can't remember where I read it,so consider it anecdotal. Here's what I remember from the article:
There was a murder case in the UK somewhere,and since the area was rather thinly populated,and DNA evidence was available(I think skin fragments under fingernails,but like I said this was a while back),the cops took a shotgun approach and just grabbed DNA samples from everyone that lived around there. They got a hit. There was a problem.
The guy that they initially thought did it had been several hundred miles away at the time,and had both witnesses and hotel receipts to prove it.
What had happened was that the cops were using an inital screening process-somewhat of a low cost method-and it only looked for a small number of markers(I want to say eight,but again,don't quote me). The area was fairly remote and hadn't seen any significant population influxes for decades. The same group of families had lived there for quite some time,and what with marrying back and forth,everyone was pretty much related to everyone,and lugging a bunch of the same genetic markers around.
When the cops went to a higher standard test,they found the guy that had done it.
So,I suppose the moral of the story is that,yes,DNA is good,but it might not be quite as foolproof as we like to think. And this story might not have had a happy ending if the initial suspect hadn't had those receipts and witnesses.
What is the name of the friend who was in the desert with Damon? Isn't he from Florida? Can that friend be traced as another of the teens from the Walsh incident? Why would Damon go out there searching for Danielle with his friend from Florida and not one of his current (pizza party) buds?
"Yes, her mother indicated she was known for running off and they would have to spend hours looking for her"
Then Miz posted this:
Please post the source for this. I've followed this case closely, and frankly, all I've heard is the exact opposite. Methinks you're spinning. But show us the interview or testimony, and I'll give it more credence.
Afterwards you refused provide proof.
First, the IDEA that Danielle ran away often and the parents had to look for her was from the BROTHERS of Danielle. The TESTIMONY of it was SUPPRESSED in COURT by Judge MUDD.
BRENDA did not say this, as a matter of fact, she totally DENIED IT.
We all know Brenda is a LIAR, that is a proven fact.
SO, Miz was asking you to prove BRENDA made that statement , which you can't because she never did.
Miz would have LIKED for you to have been ABLE to PROVE BRENDA admitted that.
You assume that MIZ and others are not on the same VIEW or SIDE as you because they ask for proof when you make a statement they KNOW to be false.
Maybe with more time on the thread you will come to a better understanding of others and actually find out YOU had some things mixed up.
Happens to all of us, so don't take this wrong or as an insult.
I took the trouble to go back and look up from reply to reply what you and MIZ were discussing and wanted to clear the air for both of you.
If I hear "Oh Boy" and "stinks" much more, I might have to run for the remote.
$50.00 on the Chargers.
Capps, you limit yourself when there is a whole UNIVERSE out there pointing to DW's guilt according to some LOL
My gosh....you're right. I hadn't thought of that.
Remember Giuseppe Zangara ("pusha da button — I not afraid of the chair!")? From killing Mayor Cermak to Old Sparky in under five weeks. But that was 1933.
Defense Feldman: Danielle Van Dam Knew Her Abductor: Dusek, Still Talking...Westerfield Waiting
Also Daddy please love me. Please forgive me, next time I'll be better".
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.