Posted on 07/11/2002 6:47:45 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Yep......how convenient that she probably left out the part where the entomologist says there is no reason he can theorize that would explain why the insect activity that would indicate an earlier PMI was absent.
It's pretty clear that the odds of Faulkner's PMI estimates being inaccurate are very, very slim.
I really would suggest that no one form his or her opinion based on punditry.
Probably wasn't a real psychologist anyway, just plays one on TV.
I'm surprised that we've not heard Faulkners testimony discounted by saying that:
1) The body was wrapped in plastic
2) There was a towel around her head
3) He used insecticide to keep the bugs away. Close to washed hair with bleach.
4) This is the best- that a migrant Mexican found her body wrapped in a blanket and took the blanket, yet left the body and failed to notify authorities.
5) She was bundled in the netting as shown from the Linen 'n Things ad.
Mash here for Explanation
Don't you mean: B U G O F F
Really? What trial have you been watching? Or have you just been taking the word of the extremely biased news reporting?
ME and LE at site said NO EVIDENCE her body had been COVERED by ANYTHING.
2) There was a towel around her head
See #1, but DUSEK tried to bring this up in cross.
3) He used insecticide to keep the bugs away. Close to washed hair with bleach.
Why, DW is not the bug entomologist with a specialty in determining TOD. Why would someone that just killed a kid think of things like that? He didn't want her to have to fight off insects? Just doesn't make sense, to me anyway.
4) This is the best- that a migrant Mexican found her body wrapped in a blanket and took the blanket, yet left the body and failed to notify authorities.
Most possible. The dump area would be a place migrants might go to look for food, also near a golf course and housing area. (/sarcasm)
5) She was bundled in the netting as shown from the Linen 'n Things ad.
Where did it go? It wouldn't keep any bugs off, DW would have left it in the MH for the police to find, as we all know he really wanted to get caught.
(JADED: did i do good?)
What about downloading under-aged bug porn ?
Really? An outcast? Tell that to all the friends with whom he went camping, Rv'ing, and playing in the desert with sand toys. From the testimony given at trial, DW is a pretty normal guy with pretty normal interests: RV's, women, pool parties, backyard BBQs, etc.
No evidence has been presented that he ever looked at any of the child porn found on his SON'S computer, nor that he even knew it was there.
Contrary to your assertion that there are "lots of motives" the prosecution seems to have been unable to come up with even one credible one. The "porno" one was shot down.
Got anything else?
If he is not, I think he'll be acquitted. The legal system is constructed so that the outcome will generally be correct.
I'm stating my opinion. "Small amount" of child-porn is in the eye of the beholder. There are lots of folks who think that "a little porn" is a healthy thing. You might be of that opinion. Whatever.
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.