Bugs: The Best Witnesses? (Westerfield's Son Neal Forced To Testify By Desperate D.A. Dusek!!)

Court TV ^ | July 25, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[the Deejay]

Detective Tomasic (not spelled correctly) was on the witness stand the other day, and he testified to the "drag marks", "a strand of blonde hair found in the drag space."

The only photos I'm aware of, are the ones in court. Unless one of our sharpshooter posters can post one for you. I think someone posted some of the airial view of the site a while back, but can't recall who.

[Krodg]

I know in your mind you're brilliant, but let's use the facts. I'll post the exchange and you show me the quote.

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~ I got to think the jury has to be about ready to dismiss all of this TOD stuff. 727 posted on 7/25/02 3:28 PM Pacific by VRWC_minion [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies |Report Abuse ]

To: VRWC_minion That's probably the dumbest thing you've said yet. 831 posted on 7/25/02 4:31 PM Pacific by Krodg [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: Krodg hat's probably the dumbest thing you've said yet.

It might interest you to know that was a quote from an attorney that was interviewed on KOGO that was both a defense atty and a prosecutor for murder cases. 930 posted on 7/25/02 5:59 PM Pacific by VRWC_minion [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[VRWC_minion]

I>Then tell me the difference in meaning

Today's witness gave his opinion of the range of time that he believes the body could have been dead for. That isn't the same as giving a time of death. They are close but not the same. <P

[UCANSEE2]

Actually, I just found out about the 4th. The blood on the jacket. I thought the jacket just had some fibers on it. What contradicts that ?

Allow me to clarify. The three points (all in the MH).

(1) the hair in the sink trap.

(2)The print under the edge of the cabinet.

(3)The DNA evidence. This is what needs clarifying. There was one spot by the bathroom that testing was done on and a DNA test showed a PERFECT match to DNA from Danielle. The second spot was on the JACKET, and a DNA test showed a PERFECT match to DNA from Danielle. There is still major debate as to whether either spot was BLOOD. The spots were way too small, were reddish brown-like in color, and (FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN SO FAR) did not have tests done to prove they were blood (ALTHOUGH CYNCOOPER SAYS DIFFERENT).

She could be correct about certain tests being done, but others have stated that these tests can give false positives very easily. So, I guess it depends on what you WANT TO BELIEVE.

Anyway the two spots in the MH I listed as ONE POINT of yours.

Did that help?

[juzcuz]

I think the body was drug Due South from Due North ( the golf course, Due North). I can understand skin drug by animals all around randomly. However, hair (clumps of hair)left from 15-80-90 feet Due North of body in a trail type (Pattern) would have to be pulled out in clumps .... to leave it that way.

[VRWC_minion]

I know in your mind you're brilliant, but let's use the facts. I'll post the exchange and you show me the quote.

I'm sorry there was no quotes. You will see that many of my posts on this thread was an attempt to type what I was hearing on the internet radio link someone here gave me. I used the other poster or myself or blank when typing the info of the proceedings.

That was pretty much exactly what the lawyer told the radio guy. The lawyer was both a prosecuting atty and a defense atty.

If I am as dumb as he is then I take your comment as a compliment.

[pyx]

Today's witness gave his opinion of the range of time that he believes the body could have been dead for. That isn't the same as giving a time of death. They are close but not the same.

In your reply above, you dance a very fine Waltz. Too bad the band is playing a Samba.

[VRWC_minion]

Just to be clear, whatever was near bathroom in RV and on the jacket, the DNA matched and the defense isn't arguing it ? There only argument is whether its blood or not ?

[UCANSEE2]

I believe the information and the ideas are getting mixed up too.

Since I haven't been to the scene, I really can't tell.

I do know that there were parts of her body (hair, entrails) drug around the scene. There were drag marks that were 'greasy' in consistency. The ME and others on scene said it looked like animals had drug off pieces of her. I don't think they thought the body had been drug by the animals (to under the tree) but that is what an animal might do (like a coyote) to keep it from view of birds of prey.

I really can't tell you how they theorize the body was brought to it's location from the NORTH, though.

Just being honest.

[the Deejay]

Right. Drug from the north to the south. If the RV were to have parked on the main road, the body would have to have been drug from the west to east. And according to Det. T., this was not the case. He said the body had been drug from the north, leaving a greasy streak for about 80 feet. (Wish they would update the transcripts online.) And it was *in* this "greasy" area, Det. T. found a blonde hair(s).

[UCANSEE2]

I thought the jacket just had some fibers on it.

Don't remember there being any fiber evidence taken from the jacket.

[VRWC_minion]

In your reply above, you dance a very fine Waltz.

It doesn't look fine to me but then I have to parse tax law often so maybe I'm not a good judge of what it means to split hairs.

[the Deejay]

"I really can't tell you how they theorize the body was brought to it's location from the NORTH, though."


I can't either, but this was Det. T's testimony. And why would anyone risk parking on the main road while you are dragging or carrying a body? That's a busy road, especially on weekends. A huge RV wouldn't go unnoticed.

[VRWC_minion]

It still doesn't make sense to me that someone would drag a childs body. Bad back ? Small person ? Avoid contact ?

Strange.

[UCANSEE2]

the DNA matched and the defense isn't arguing it ?

Correct. Defense did not argue Danielle was never in the MH, but when. The dogs did not hit on Danielle having been in the MH, DEAD or ALIVE, with 2 weeks of when the dogs were used, so what do you think ?

[VRWC_minion]

A huge RV wouldn't go unnoticed

Good point. If it was an RV owner you would want to park as far away as possible and then carry the body there. Dragging still doesn't make sense.

[the Deejay]

"Bad back ? Small person ? Avoid contact ?"


Perhaps all of the above. Only the killer could answer that one. My best guess is a "small person." Alive, she weighed 60 lbs., dead weight weighs heavier. Not sure how much heavier though. But if dead weight doubles, then it would be 120 lbs.

[pyx]

It doesn't look fine to me but then I have to parse tax law often so maybe I'm not a good judge of what it means to split hairs.

I agree. You're not a good judge.

Once again;
The prosecution witness clearly stated the time interval as being 4 to 6 weeks. That is, between 28 days and 42 days. Danielle Van Dam's body was recovered February 27, 2002.
That means the prosecution witness's time interval was from January 16, 2002 to January 31, 2002.
The middle of January until the end of January.

That's NOT splitting hairs. Thems the facts.

You might change perceptions however, reality won't budge.

[UCANSEE2]

And it was *in* this "greasy" area, Det. T. found a blonde hair(s). Hey, Deej, was this the clumps of her hair (danielle's) or possibly someone else's hair. Did DET. T. ever have it tested or say ? Do we know ?

[the Deejay]

When the dogs didn't "hit", that means it was old blood. Could have been there, no telling how long. Maybe a year.