Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense could pin hopes on insect life..Westerfield Trial Breaking News: BUG EVIDENCE QUESTIONS!!
Union Tribune ^ | July 10, 2002 | Kristen Green

Posted on 07/10/2002 3:17:09 PM PDT by FresnoDA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 781-790 next last
To: Rheo
Did they find any other little kids prints in there? Just Danielle's huh? How unlucky for Mr.Westerfield AGAIN! Got to be the most unlucky defendent of all time...
681 posted on 07/11/2002 12:57:49 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Unless he was bleeding or spitting on things how is he going to leave DNA there?

Sweating, hair, prints....there were no carpet fibers from his house found in hers..no evidence of him at all.

How did he get in, when, how did he get her out without running into DVD and the peeing dog?

How did he get her to his house?

Where was she when he came back to the neighborhood on 2/2

When did he supposedly dump her at Deshesa?..the list goes on.

"STill have those pesky unidentified prints in her bedroom and on the doors and the bannister" As they are in many crime scenes. Big deal

Little girl is taken from room, down the stairs and the supposed entry doors that were used, per the VD's...all have unidentified prints..even after the list the parents supplied and LEO were all tested.

Yea, ok Greg

682 posted on 07/11/2002 1:02:45 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
In the MH?...yes, Danielle L's, his xlive in girlfriends daughter and Jennifer, her friend.

Why has no child or parent stepped forward to say this man was a perv to them or their kids?

His exgirlfriends, 2 of them, both had kids....no abuse.

683 posted on 07/11/2002 1:07:02 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Goodnight John....I'm out of here too.
684 posted on 07/11/2002 1:07:49 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
So your contention is that in every crime ever commited the perp has left either hair, sweat, prints at the scene? Is that what you are saying?

There are unidentified prints at the scene in many cases. Manson for one. I can think of a couple others as well. That not unusual at all. You must know that.

685 posted on 07/11/2002 1:15:29 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Why is he blaming the kiddie porn on his son? Geez thanks Dad!
686 posted on 07/11/2002 1:16:58 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: fatima
"he might be found innocent but that does not mean he is not guilty unless it is proven otherwise."

In other words, the guilty are sometimes set free. Of course. I understand perfectly, even if others do not.

687 posted on 07/11/2002 1:56:51 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
2/4, 2/5 and 2/6 also got down to freezing at night, with mild temperatures at midday.

As I recall the OJ trial, much more time was devoted to "educating" the jury as to the soundness of the "science," and its "reliability." On the one hand, one could say: "So what?" That jury didn't care a bit, for science.

But seriously, it seems like the prosecution failed to drive home, the degree of reliability, for hair, fiber, blood and DNA. Likewise, he failed to question the bug guy, as to the range of error for weather as a variable.

The jury is left to decide, what weight to give to one bit of physical evidence, versus another.

Both sides got the bug guy to make a statement, which serves their case; leaving it inconclusive, as I heard it (therefore both sides can quote the statement he made, favoring their position).

As I view the case today, I predict a hung jury. Some jurors will see the physical evidence against DW, and not be able to believe all of the items are just a "coincidence." Maybe it would fall under a calculation of "compound probability" (if that is the correct statistical term).

Those voting to acquit or not guilty, will see the chance, individually, for each item of physical evidence to have occured, and for DW to not have killed the 7 year old girl, used his SUV and MH to transport her, gotten her hair, blood, DNA and fibers all around him.

688 posted on 07/11/2002 2:11:56 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: juzcuz
a 100% NYLON (Waterproof) snowboard cover could be how a body could be contained bug free in a moist environment. This theory could also fit in with the sports interests of the parties involved. Also, if the cover was B/G it could have left B/G Nylon fibers on a body.

Also, ever since your post about "Father Daughter weekend at Big Bear", during the weekend of FEB. 1. 2002--

Now whose snowboard cover or duffle bag was used as a mummification shroud for little Danielle's body? Damon's, Libby's, whose?

Was the body kept in the trunk of Damon's SUV, someone else's trunk, or that mountain top cabin? All can provide the dry environments that mummification takes place in.

Oh Damon! Don't leave the country, please.

689 posted on 07/11/2002 4:18:42 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Gee golly, Greg, why if someun' on the TV says it, why that's as good as gospel! Like you said, dude, "'Westerfield is Guilty'---Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly Factor". Those TV guys they know everything!

Yep!

690 posted on 07/11/2002 4:34:46 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Someone stole into your house one night and took most of your brain. Better go get an EEG right away, maybe you can get a transplant from a monkey or something.
691 posted on 07/11/2002 4:41:02 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Restated: "Bonaparte shares the same misunderstandings as fatime"
692 posted on 07/11/2002 4:43:43 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Greg, after your thickheadness I have to say there are now eight wonders of the world. You ever think of going on tour with Barnum and Bailey? There's room for you in the sideshow.

The testimony of the expert regarding the "porno" was quite compelling. The evidence he found was very clear. It WAS Westerfield's son who downloaded most of that porn, and the prosecution, imnho, knew it, before they prejudiced the jury by showing the son's porno in the opening statement. Anything to win, facts and innocence be damned. -- That is unacceptable, corrupt, rotten attitude for any officer of the court.

693 posted on 07/11/2002 4:50:15 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Someone "stole into my house"? Never heard it put that way before. You DW apoligists sure have a way with words.

"Westerfield is Guilty"---Bill O'Reilly

Sanity prevails. Thank you Mr.O'Reilly!!

694 posted on 07/11/2002 4:51:49 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Yeah well why didn't Feldman come out and say the son did it then? Why mess around and play games with mights and maybes? Is Westerfield going to take the stand and put the blame on his kid?
695 posted on 07/11/2002 4:54:51 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Like you I am fascinated with O'Reilly in regards his opinion on the Westerfield case. Unlike you, though, I am curious as to the whyfore of his position, so certain before the trial, with no direct evidence, no witness, an overburdened motive (a motive that in time will seem way, way overplayed and that it is in fact rare to have people motivted to kill by porn alone.)

There are certain circles -- people are in this group of associates and that, Mr. O'Reilly is in one (at least one), and it is NOT so all-knowing as he imagines it to be.

696 posted on 07/11/2002 5:05:05 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: bvw
>>The evidence he found was very clear. It WAS Westerfield's son who downloaded most of that porn, and the prosecution, imnho, knew it, before they prejudiced the jury by showing the son's porno in the opening statement. Anything to win, facts and innocence be damned. -- That is unacceptable, corrupt, rotten attitude for any officer of the court.<<

That not what Marcus Lawson said in his testimony...

On cross-examination, prosecutor George "Woody" Clarke tried to undermine the expert's testimony by getting Lawson to admit that he could not say who downloaded the violent rape scenes and nude shots of young girls found on discs in Westerfield's office.

"As far as Neal having created the images on the zip discs and CDs, that would be speculation on your part," said Clarke.

"That's correct," Lawson agreed

Trying to pass speculation off as "fact"....Not very honest on your part bvw. Not very honest at all.

697 posted on 07/11/2002 5:07:46 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Fact, by expert testimony, unrebutted: It WAS Westerfield's son who downloaded most of that porn.
698 posted on 07/11/2002 5:09:53 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: bvw
That's not what Marcus Lawson said. What other "expert testimony" are you referring to?
699 posted on 07/11/2002 5:14:48 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Greg, here's a show to watch: JOHN STOSSEL-20/20 FRIDAY 7/12/02 10PM - "HOW MEDIA FOOLS PUBLIC
700 posted on 07/11/2002 5:15:32 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 781-790 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson