Replies

Don't know? Maybe they wanted to save some of the evidence. Can't do the tests on the "whole spot" of blood, since the defense will want to run their own tests in their own lab, ala OJ hearings :~)

I think it's not logical that Westerfield would have deserted the child in some forsaken place, leaving her to wander naked in the wilderness. He would have risked that she could have been found alive and identified him, assuming he did this.

OTOH, maybe they found her hands and feet bound and since they can't come to a finding "how she actually" died, think she was still alive when she was dumped, and that would mean "desertion"?

Amore, the man said "NOT GUILTY" and we are trying to understand perhaps WHY he might not be NOT GUILTY.

So, basically, we are conducting a mock trail, it's tough since only the Prosecutor has presented his case...:~)

"He would have risked that she could have been found alive and identified him, assuming he did this."

Especially knowing that in so many of these cases, searchers and volunteer searchers would be all over the places he'd been--and remember, he did voluntarily disclose his whereabouts on his weekend trip.

"... and that would mean "desertion"?"

See Quimby's post #240--it appears to be military-related.

"Amore, the man said "NOT GUILTY" and we are trying to understand perhaps WHY he might not be NOT GUILTY. "

People do this very thing on almost every single thread. Click on one of the terrorism related threads, and people speculate about why this terrorist did that, or why the FBI did something else. Click on one of the elections threads, and people are speculating about why this guy said that, or why another guy voted on a bill in a certain way. And remember the Chandra Levy threads? And the Florida election threads? No one ever thinks twice, and almost everyone indulges in a little speculation of their own. Why are these Danielle threads different, I wonder?