Replies

I wonder what would have happened to the first guy if he hadn't kept his hotel receipts. Well, he wouldn't have had to worry about the death penalty. Small comfort.

I think the problem in this case is that it's all boiling down to the science involved. Since science (supposedly) doesn't lie, then DNA-fibre-entomology all have to be considered equal: all have certainly been used to convict. If you say "DNA is not an exact science", you have to admit the possiblity at least that the other two fields are flawed as well. If you take that route, then all that forensic evidence should be thrown out as "not reliable enough" - or all must be given equal weight as being "definitely reliable".

So you end up with the blocked discussions we have here - some say the DNA-fibre is good enough for a conviction, others say the bugs are good enough for an acquittal.

If you remove all three forensic fields from the equation, what evidence is left?

Well, fibres can certainly useful, but I wouldn't class them in with DNA and forensic entomology, particularly when the fibres are not sourced. This is especially true in a case, such as this one, where it is known that the accused and the victim were in physical contact with each other within days of the crime allegedly committed.

We know Danielle and Westerfield are inextricably linked, whether he did the deed or not. They have been linked together by hair and fibre evidence by virtue of:

(1) the cookie visit

(2) the "tail feather fest" on the evening/night of Feb 1, when fibre transfer was possible (Locard theory of transfer)

(3) DW soon became he prime suspect in this case, with LE all over Danielle's stuff and DW's stuff.

The question is: do the fibres and hairs show they were linked before (yes), during (?)or after (yes) the "abduction"? We need to find fibres which prove "during" if DW is guilty.

Before the alleged abduction: Yes, there must be linkage, as we know there was the cookie visit within days of the "abduction". There was also possible transfer during the "tail feather fest" at Dad's on the evening/night of the "abduction".

During the alleged abduction: Aye, there's the rub! This is what we really want to know!

After the alleged abduction: They are linked simply by virtue of DW being a suspect. Once that happens, particularly if he is the prime suspect, more and more linkage occurs. At this point, fibres may be shed and/or transferred by LE (and their search dogs) which are "after the fact."

What I am (we all are) searching for are fibre links which definitively point to linkage between Danielle and DW DURING the alleged abduction. So far, I have not found such, but not for lack of trying!

So I'm not so nearly set on any fibre evidence as on DNA and the bugs.