Posted on 08/06/2002 8:53:49 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Don't fall for the pizza & garage bit. Check the kids !
Fascinating. A crime scene that collects evidence.
Next time I'm out I'll ask my local cop "how many rim-fire .22 casings do you have in you trouser cuff ?"
Ah, ever hear of Haggar slacks ?
I'd like to think so, but there are also the "lifers" who just nod to the HHIC and do as they're told.
There's a CPA. If he's as detail-oriented as many are, hopefully he'll pick the prosecution's fantasies to pieces.
Then there's that gal who has been on a jury and has work experience in criminal justice. Surely, she will be able to figure things out.
Again, you and I see the case as a crock; but there is no telling what these folks might do.
What do you mean? help them how? By doing what?
Flash back to Damon. Damon was upstairs in the Bed when Brenda came home. That's when Barb laid on top of him to give him some "comfort".
Damon then went downstairs and told them to leave, and it was testified he was in a "somber mood".
So I add "Damon in a Somber mood" to your list.
sw
sw
This is one of the items about this case that fascinates me about as much as it appalls me. A young woman is gone,foul play is suspected,if not yet established,and there's a spent cartridge casing on the floor. But according to the investigators,"It doesn't mean anything."
FWIW,did the VanDam couple have any firearms in the house? They don't strike me as being the type that goes in for having a bunch of hardware around the house.
That troubled me too so I dug up the directions and read this a number of times
FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
The way I can reconcile the prosecutor and the above is that the facts themselves (ie existance of blood, hair, fibers etc) each have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt and then the inferences drawn from them would be considered in total. So, in the instant case we would first acknowledge that each piece of evidence exists without drawing infernences and then when that step is done go to the step of drawing an inference from all of the evidence not just bits of it.
I am a CPA and trained to gather evidence sufficent to support my opinions. You might be disapointed.
Been discussed over and over on past threads. We think Danielle and her brothers (or at least 1) were in the MH sometime in the past.
I know they testified to this, and I heard what 'they experts' said, but is 12 of 13 open to meaning it could be her brothers or mom's ????
Not only that, but the .22 casing that was in the police 'evidence' lockup, was checked out (taken out of evidence) by an 'unknown, didn't even sign for it' person, and then returned later.
You can take the statement you posted and interpret it any way you want. You are free to do so.
The JURY has to follow the INSTRUCTIONS given to them by the judge, and he went over this instruction and made it very clear what was meant. So did Feldman.
DUSEK OTOH, wants the jury to ignore each piece of individual evidence and testimony, and facts and figures. He wants the jury to just BELIEVE that DW grabbed the little girl and took her. No other explanations or proof need to be considered. BECAUSE that is all DUSEK has.
I agree and seeing that neither Feldman nor the court objected to the charachterization done by Dusek I imagine the jury will conclude that Dusek's explanations are correct.
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.