If going to a basketball game was illegal, and I found tapes of basketball games in a guy's apartment, it would be relevent. Not because the tapes made him go to a basketball game, but because the tapes would strongly suggest that the subject had an interest in basketball.
As to the case as a whole, the most compelling evidence for the prosecution is the DNA evidence and the fact that Westerfield's MH had been so thoroughly scrubbed. The porn and wierd trip on the weekend is strongly supportive. They've muddied their case up by using the kitchen sink method of throwing out everything they can think of (the dog "hit" evidence comes to mind), and their biggest fubar is not coming up with ANYTHING to counter the bug evidence. They KNEW this would be an issue. The wide time frame of body dumping is a clear indication that they fudged facts to make it fit their theory, and this could sink the prosecution. As to the possibility of the orange fibers having come from department personnel, this should never have been a factor. Should have been checked and a definite answer available. If it was department, don't bring it up. If it wasn't, blow the defense out of the water when they suggest it.
Prosecution wasn't ready to go to trial, but did it because of publicity of case. Nobody should have suggested prosecuting without knowing how DW got ahold of her and what happened later. I don't really buy the kept her body preserved some way theories. My suspicion is that DW was involved, but not alone. I think she was kept alive for reasons too terrible to contemplate, then murdered and dumped later.
The elected prosecutor needed a boost in the polls to help insure his re-election and pushed too hard for an indictment; counting on DW to waive his right to a speedy trial. It makes no sense for a defendant who is innocent to waive his right to a speedy trial and give the prosecution enough time to 'create' evidence or twist innocent events or facts into 'proof'. If DW committed this crime and is found 'not guilty', and later evidence proves it, the prosecutor's political career will be in ruins.
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