Replies

You are correct that the jury will determine the credibility. But, you are forgetting two things: 1. the STATE hired Faulkner specifically to establish TOD as 2/2-2/4. When he could not do that, they chose not to call him as a witness, and 2. the State is in REBUTTAL phase of case. This is not their case-in-chief. Obviously, they are worried about defense's bug experts or else they would not be trying to rebut(actually, confuse the jury)regarding time that Danielle's body was placed at Dehesa. If the State had such powerful witnesses/evidence to establish TOD in the 2/2-2/4 range, they certainly would have presented such during their case-in-chief.

I have been predominantly a lurker on these threads since the trial began(I have not formed an opinion re: guilty/not guilty), but it has been my observation that an overwhelming number of "DW is guilty" posters have never questioned the plausibility of any State hypothesis/theory/witness regardless of the weakness of same.

I 'think" dusek decided to not use faulkner cuz of his lack of experience with mummified bodies. It's this witness's profession. it's a miracle in to have a mummified body cuz it ruled out so many causes of death... also, he testified that little kids bodies can mummify quickly..within 24 hrs..and a rodent could chew into body later...say 10 days AFTER being dumped which would then allow bugs inside. The dried mummified skin will keep the inside moist enough for blowfies to still want to utilize the resource...it says he's seen that happen a lot of times..

but it has been my observation that an overwhelming number of "DW is guilty" posters have never questioned the plausibility of any State hypothesis/theory/witness regardless of the weakness of same.

I take exception to that. I have posted several problems I have with this guys testimony. Lack of proof of the ants and lack of correlation of the road heat to February to name a few.

But as to strategy and for the purpose of this guys testimony I believe the prosecution has accomplished its job. It has provided another estimate from another forensic field that supports an earlier drop off date for the body.

I also "feel" something else about the defense rebuttle that could be happening as an unanticipated consequence that Feldman has walked into in. In his zeal to disprove this guy who is weak on bug stuff he is making two mistakes in my opinion.

THe first mistake is that by testing every assumption through his questions he is bringing the attention to the jury that the determination of the dates is complex and the jury may ask itself whether any witness could be relied on.

The second mistake is one of strategy. When the real bug guy testifies he will know exactly how Feldman is going to cross so he will be better prepared. Goff won't make the same mistakes.

I have been predominantly a lurker on these threads since the trial began(I have not formed an opinion re: guilty/not guilty), but it has been my observation that an overwhelming number of "DW is guilty" posters have never questioned the plausibility of any State hypothesis/theory/witness regardless of the weakness of same.

My comments were about my evaluation, of how the JURY will see the evidence.

I am undecided. I think there is strong evidence against DAW, but there may be doubt, at the end. I predict a hung jury.

You are correct that the jury will determine the credibility. But, you are forgetting two things: 1. the STATE hired Faulkner specifically to establish TOD as 2/2-2/4. When he could not do that, they chose not to call him as a witness, and 2. the State is in REBUTTAL phase of case. This is not their case-in-chief. Obviously, they are worried about defense's bug experts or else they would not be trying to rebut(actually, confuse the jury)regarding time that Danielle's body was placed at Dehesa. If the State had such powerful witnesses/evidence to establish TOD in the 2/2-2/4 range, they certainly would have presented such during their case-in-chief.

There are only a few of these so-called experts. The prosecution had to work fast. They first turned to a familiar specialist. When that didn't yield their answer, they went forward, for their entire case didn't revolve on that one aspect of evidence, alone.

I am not moved that this set of circumstances is particularly important. Even now, months later, the prosecution and defense are jockeying, as to which expert to line up; eg. the Alien guy, or the Hawaii guy, etc.