[small_l_libertarian]

Annette Peer was in the motorhome Feb. 6, according to Karen LeAlcala's prelim cross. Check out the end of this exchange.

13 Q WAS ONE OF THOSE OR AT LEAST THAT OCCASION,

14 IF NOT ONE OF MORE THAN ONE OCCASION PRIOR TO

15 FEBRUARY 8TH, WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN A CRIMINALIST

16 NAMED ANNETTE PEER WAS ALSO IN THE MOTORHOME AT THE

17 SAME TIME AS YOU?

18 A YES.

19 MR. FELDMAN: SCOPE.

20 THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT, BUT

21 I GAVE YOU LATITUDE, I'M GOING TO GIVE HIM LATITUDE

22 TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.

23 MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

24 BY MR. CLARKE:

25 Q DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR PRESENCE IN THE

26 MOTORHOME, AND I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY THE DATE, WHAT

27 THAT WAS? AND I'M REFERRING TO PRIOR TO

28 FEBRUARY 8TH.









Page 349

1 A I WAS THERE ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT DAYS.

2 Q THE OCCASION WITH ANNETTE PEER, WHAT WAS

3 THAT DATE?

4 A IF I LOOK AT MY EVIDENCE LIST, I COULD TELL

5 YOU THAT.

6 Q WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

7 A YES.

8 Q WOULD YOU PLEASE DO SO.

9 A I KNOW I WAS THERE ON FEBRUARY THE 6TH AND

10 SO WAS CRIMINALIST ANNETTE PEER.

11 Q AT THAT TIME ON FEBRUARY 6TH, WERE YOU

12 AWARE WHETHER OR NOT MISS PEER HAD LOCATED A BLOOD

13 STAIN ON THE CARPET ON THAT DATE?

14 MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN

15 EVIDENCE AND BEYOND THE SCOPE.

16 THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I GAVE YOU SOME

17 LATITUDE, BUT THAT'S -- YOU RAN OUT OF SPACE.

18 MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

19 BY MR. CLARKE:

20 Q WITH RESPECT TO THAT DATE OF FEBRUARY 6

21 WHEN YOU WERE PRESENT WITH ANNETTE PEER, DID YOU

22 OBSERVE HER LOCATION OF A BLOOD STAIN?

23 MR. FELDMAN: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

24 OBJECTION. AND CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION.

25 THE COURT: IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE AND I'M NOT

26 GOING TO ALLOW IT.

[small_l_libertarian]

Annette Peer's direct testimony from the preliminary hearing:

10 Q. Can you tell us, first of all, what date that

11 was?

12 A. There were actually three dates that I was in

13 attendance at the motorhome. I believe it was

14 February 5th, February 6th and February 8th.


*** A little further down in her direct, it says that she found the bloodstain on February 6th. I am just now reading further down in her direct, and she states that there were fewer genetic markers available in the carpet stain than in the jacket stain. Would tend to support the "old forensic evidence in the MH" theory. ***

[sawsalimb]

Curiouser and curiouser. If Westerfield is innocent,and I strongly suspect that he is,this timeline means that-to my way of thinking-he'd been nominated for the fall guy position early on. That,or the samples that Peer took were switched or contaminated sometme between 06Feb and the time they were tested.

Interesting,because the accidental death scenario was plausible to me-but now I'm brainstorming about motives again. Assume that Danille died accidentally,or that she was killed accidentally. Why on earth would the cops be working so hard to find a fall guy? If memory serves,I don't think that the life insurance policy on that girl was particularly large,unless there are some other policies that aren't being talked about,so why all this work? (And I might add that it seems to be pretty sloppy work in some instances)