To: oremus
There was poison oak at the Dehesa Rd. site. Even though the plants were dormant for the winter, there were still enough leaves to cause people to get a rash. Faulkner (the bug guy) testified that he got such a rash, because he had to search around through the plants.
IMO, the defense drew attention to that, to show that there was a high possibility that the person who dumped the body at Dehesa would also have contacted the poison oak, and would have had a rash. DW was under police surveillance early on in the case. If the defense can show that he's allergic to poison oak, but didn't develop a rash, then it's another point that shows he couldn't have dumped the body there.
To: NatureGirl
THanks. That's it. I'm convinced. Free DAW, an innocent man.
498 posted on
07/10/2002 8:16:46 PM PDT by
oremus
To: NatureGirl
Now, how did I manage to post that twice? Must be getting late.
To: NatureGirl
Didn't the police & investigators think about this poison oak business while Westerfield was under suspicion & being followed for weeks?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson