Replies

There's no escaping idiotic notions, if only because common sense isn't at all common in our society. However, even my argument above about the head banging is a moot point. Two things say--beyond all reasonable doubt--that Westerfield didn't, and couldn't have done it:

1. The dogs did not alert on the inside of that motorhome. Scent remains for up to a year; even if the windows had been opened during his drive, it would not have been enough to eliminate the scent--dogs track people in the outdoors for weeks after their disappearance. If the child had been in that motorhome that weekend, the dogs would have alerted their handlers, clearly and emphatically.

2. Entomology is well-respected and reliable everywhere except among the Luddite flat-earthers who refuse to believe any evidence exonerating DW. (One wonders if they believe there really ARE little people inside their television sets, too.) The bugs don't lie--they just live their life cycles as they always do. That child was deposited at Dehesa like so much garbage--weeks after DW had been under constant, unrelenting surveillance.

However, even my argument above about the head banging is a moot point.

I don't know that it is a moot point. It is moot to the extent that it was allowed to get in, but it may not be so moot if there needs to be an appeal. As with the porn, I think that was spurious and prejudicial.

As the clock ticks off, I think DW's chances improve. I could be wrong though. Juries do tend to convict.

Today, the judge is scheduled to hear arguments on whether prosecutors can show the jury the pornographic images – including cartoon rape fantasies – that police said they found on computer disks in Westerfield's house.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/20020507-2208-n90513.html

Those images included photos of nude children, photos of people having sex with animals and cartoon videos depicting young girls being tied up and raped, the jurors were told.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/20020627-9999_1n27wester.html

At Westerfield's preliminary hearing two weeks ago, prosecutors briefly alluded to their theory that a bondage cartoon showing a young woman being tied up and forcibly assaulted pointed to Westerfield's alleged motive for the crime.

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020329/11111.html

In his home computer files, they found 64,000 pornographic pictures, including "less than 100" images of young girls in sexual acts. One file contained a cartoon in which a terrified girl begged a man not to rape her.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/background_ctv.html

The above are a few sources that state that the rape video was a cartoon.

For those who keep harping on the "rape video," PLEASE go check these sources. Thank you.

The dogs did not alert on the inside of that motorhome.

Again, this is where it starts and stops for me.

The prosecution's case completely hangs on the MH / jacket forensic evidence. It has gaping holes everywhere else.

If you go to the idea that Danielle was in the MH at some time in the past, but was not in there that weekend...

That possibility cooks the DA's goose.

The dog does that. Unlike just about everyone else who got anywhere near this, the dog is an objective witness.