Defense Feldman: Danielle Van Dam Knew Her Abductor: Dusek, Still Talking...Westerfield Waiting

Union Trib ^ | August 8, 2002 | Steve Perez/Greg Magnus

[connectthedots]

By reading law school texts, past experience with the courts and knowledge gained from that, and taking a bar prep course. I should have little trouble passing the exam.

[the Deejay]

No, the jury doesn't get the opening & closing arguments.
They get the jury instructions, and anything admitted
into evidence.

If they have a question about anyone's testimony, they
send a note to the judge, then everyone assembles in
the court room for the readback(s).

[shezza]

MH hadn't been in neighborhood since the holidays. It was not there that week, or every weekend, or every day. For the transfer theory from DVD taking the evidence into the motorhome, it just doesn't wash. She had her hair cut to 8 inches. We've got charts that show the length of the hair found in there. NObody had seen her in the motorhome. People are around, the girlfriends, the daughters of the girlfriends, the son, nobody ever saw her in there. That door is hard to open for a 7-year-old.

[shezza]

YOu must believe she went inside and went all over the motorhome, taking her blue fibers to the front, to the rear, where she bled. No explanation given. Fingerprints, hair, blue fibers, dog hairs, and the blood. And the blood. What was going on in there? There is no reasonable explanation except for guilt, none.

[theartfuldodger]

I wish you success.

[shezza]

Too many types of evidence, too many numbers, to be anything other than guilt. Hair in sink of bathroom with root...how did that get there?

[EllaMinnow]

Don't you just love it?

They're always telling people to read the threads, as if their ramblings are evidence.

You just have to laugh at them.

[UCANSEE2]

What overwhelming evidence do you mean?

All of the evidence and testimony has been discussed and it's meaning and probability for accuracy determined.

Lawyers are conducting CLOSING ARGUMENTS, in which no cross examination is allowed. THis means they are giving totally one-sided arguments. Are you listening to closing arguments? Have you listened to both sides?

Do you think DW is guilty?

Do you think the jury will find him guilty?

Did the cadaver dogs hit on the Motorhome?

Were the two small spots (one in the MH on the carpet, one on DW's jacket) tested and proved to be BLOOD?

What were the results of the DNA test on those spots? What kind of test was done on the hair found in the MH? What does that test prove?

[shezza]

The drycleaner...the receipts...what's going on? Shows up at the crack of dawn in his underwear with the comforters and the pillow shams. The receipts are off, but the evidence is here.

[Jaded]

Thanks, have a nice day.

[shezza]

(shezza: In his underwear? Oh, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.)

Rely on the evidence. This evidence alone is enough to convict.

[Lucky]

A good homeschooler. The best of luck to you.

[spectre]

Hello, Dipstick...you sure don't mind reading the threads? You're quite a groupie..girl.

sw

[VRWC_minion]

i can't figure out how intelligent people on this thread are able to ignore the overwhelming evidence

I agree that the evidence is to me overwhelming but I disagree with your inference that those who conclude differently are unintelligent people.

I believe the outcome on deciding differently is that those who disagree with you and I is they have taken each piece of physical evidence separately and have found a possible innocent explanation. If you do this one at a time then you are left with no evidence.

You and I are probably looking at the existance of the combined total of physical evidence and saying "I cannot come up with a reasonable explanation that is innocent". We end up deciding between what I call the "Big Bad Wolf" vs "Goldilocks" to explain the sum total of the evidence.

Those who disagree with us will take you to task for each and every single item of evidence and individually find a contrary explanation for each piece.

That is why the rope analogy and the guy cheating at 21 examples done by Dusek were important. In his game of 21, the card player won every hand and the chances of him doing that without cheating is nill. But taken one hand at a time its possible that each he could win each individual hand. But common sense tells you that you have to be cheating if you win dozens of hands.

[the-gooroo]

I was just checking trial transcripts. Damon says that when he went to say goodnight to Danielle she was already in bed with the covers all the way up to her neck so he didn't see what she had on. Something is very wrong here.

[nycgal]

Feldman would have motive, but my bet would be on Brenda

If it was Feldman, River would have given him up. I agree, it's Brenda.

[sunshine state]

Interesting analysis of Feldman's closing. Thanks.

[Jaded]

The last person I asked in here today to explain in a reasonable manner how David did this left... without reply. Surprised me, I tell you!!

[shezza]

This jacket is the smoking gun. Danielle's blood is on that jacket. And after hearing all of the closing arguments, this wasn't touched at all. Give me an explanation of how it got there. YOu didn't hear one, not one. THe attack was that there were no photographs, except for maybe a Polaroid. Danielle's blood on his jacket. No dispute, no defense evidence that it was not her blood. THe smoking gun. THere is no explanation except that he did it.

[Jaded]

Don't pay attention to the man behing the curtain.