Posted on 07/24/2002 10:44:59 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Of course, even standing outside doesn't protect them ,as evidenced by the murder of a little boy in Oceanside, in a public restroom, while his aunt waited for him outside.
First off, bringing a Forensic Psychologist in to say that Pornography precludes rape/murder, just cannot be PROVEN. If Feldman brings one on that says "No, there is no proof that DW committed this crime because he viewed horrible porno"...then Dusek counters with "Well, but you can't prove that he didn't do it because of the Porno"..and the answer is No, you can't. It's a wash for either side. I know WE don't see it that way, and while we can speculate and use common sense, it is only an opinion, not backed up by statistics...or PROOF. Sort of like, just because I am into gun collecting, doesn't mean I want to shoot someone..But then again??
I listened to this expert. He is assuming alot of variables...too many. He goes thru the process of many different feeding cycles of animals and insects.
The last one, about the ants carrying off fly larva was true, but in this case, Dr. Haskell witnessed that the larva and life cycle of the blow-fly did indeed take place.
BUT if the ants were to carry off, let's say the very first cycle, around the time she should have been dumped, Feb 4th or 5th, then where did the ants go when Haskell did his investigation? If we are to believe that ants carried off all the larva evidence, then I guess there would never be any maggots on anything? THAT's alot of ants considering the amount of eggs the blowflys lay for those tiny ants to carry off...leaving no trace evidence. Remember that Haskell testified they find their "feeding" source usually within one hour after body is out in the open. And keep in mind, that the insects only eat on fleshy stuff, so once the body is totally dried up, the process stops.
The one outstanding thing the witness DID say, was there is absolutely no way to tell, from insect and animal activity, PRECISELY when the body was placed THERE. AGAIN, he goes on to explain that it depends on many, many things...insects, animals, etc., which may take time to start eating away at the body, or may not be present yet, depending on how hungry they are. OR different insects will actually slow down the decomposation of the body.
Are we not to believe Haskells findings? This guy has thrown in enough to confuse everyone, and that's probably the point. We'll see on cross.
sw
That isn't what I heard. He seemed to indicate that the conditions of the nearby hot road, plus the small body, plus the other surroundings made "instant" (24hrs) mummifaction possible. I don't recall him saying anything about mummification beforehand but I did miss some of it.
He just recently took roadside temps, no? Hot road is not as hot in Feb.
I'm WAAAAAAY behind today, but I saw your post about the "blood" on DAW's jacket and motorhome carpet. Since this is something I've been researching a bit, I thought I'd chime in. :o)
The presumptive test uses a little reactive plastic stick sometimes called a Hemostix. It indicates a positive reading for anything with oxygen in it, including blood, saliva, mucus (snot), non-human-provided rust, even insect droppings or squished fly guts. Further testing would be required to determine that the stain is actually blood, and even FURTHER tests to determine if it is indeed human blood--tests which the SDPD did not perform.
In addition, blood can react positively and provide a full DNA profile after 30 years, and a partial profile after more than 50 years. Saliva, even when diluted to 1 part in 100 (like washed or wiped off or dry-cleaned, perhaps), also reacts with a positive reading with the hemostix and provides a full DNA profile even when the stain is more than a dozen years old.
I find it quite odd that a savagely brutal rape and murder provided such tiny remnants of evidence, the same evidence which could have been left in those two locations YEARS earlier (Danielle moved to the Sabre Springs home two years earlier, and that's about how long DAW had that motorhome).
My .02, you understand, but something that certainly seems to indicate a perfectly innocent explanation for Danielle's DNA on DAW's jacket and a tiny spot on the MH carpet. Perhaps a sneeze that sprayed droplets of DNA in a wide radius while she went into the MH to retrieve a wayward Layla, stopping for just a moment to look out the window or regain her balance and leaving a fingerprint on the side of the cabinet.
It would have to have been before it was stored in November, right?"
Yes it would, rl. The print and trace evidence would have remained from the time the MH was bought by DW, unless somehow disturbed by wiping, or other type of cleaning.
Based on all the trace evidence that turned up - that had been left by other visitors to his MH - it doesn't appear to me, that DW was near as fastidious about housekeeping, as he was, early on, given credit.
Archy, you iz rite. I know who did kill Nicole, it was very obvious and yet well covered up. If you want to know, PRIVMAIL me and I will tell you.
sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.