Replies

Yes, punditry = definitely iffy. And of course, Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor, so it stands to reason she would see most cases from that perspective.

I don't know from bugs, variances there seem iffy too. But I don't see how the jury can get around:

1. Danielle's blood found on Westerfield's clothes.

2. Westerfield fibers found on Danielle's body.

But YaYa...none of those things matter if the Prosecution can't place HOW the blood got on his jacket, or WHERE the fibers came from.

Bear in mind, the fibers are "similar", not exact.

Do we know where the fiber's in Westerfield's motorhome and house came from? Did they come from something that belonged to Westerfield or did they come from another common source?

1. Danielle's blood found on Westerfield's clothes.

2. Westerfield fibers found on Danielle's body.

I understand your concern. You have posed some good questions.

And THANK YOU for asking questions instead of trying to TELL EVERYONE how WRONG THEY ARE. Your attitude makes all the difference in the kind of response you recieve, ya know what i mean ?

(1)I think we all are unsure about the tiny blood spot on the lapel of DW's JACKET. There are many theories on how it could have gotten there, that do not involve DW killing her.

Prosecution did not narrow down at time window for when the blood got there, so they actually proved nothing beyond the fact that "DNA from a very small spot , that could have been blood, on the lapel of DW's Jacket was tested and shown to be almost certainly Daneille VD's.

Same with the spot on the floor outside the bathroom, although you didn't even mention it.

If these spots were truly blood from Danielle being killed, WHY is the amount so very, very small. How did DW get 'to' Danielle to take her into the MH and kill her? There is no evidence he was EVER in the VD home. The MH wasn't at his house. He would have had to have taken her in his SUV. There were no traces of Danielle in his SUV. WHY?

Did he and her walk all the way to where his MH was stored?

(2)The FIBERS were not Westerfield's fibers. It was testified that they COULD have been the same as ones from the MH, and the same person said they also COULD NOT have been. She said it is POSSIBLE THEY WERE THE SAME, POSSIBLE they WERE NOT THE SAME. Don't believe me, go read the testimony.

GO back to the beginning of this thread, read forward, you will find replies where the statements are given that fiber testing is non-conclusive and an EXACT MATCH cannot is undeterminable. For instance, DID any of the fibers they tested, that supposedly were found by Danielle's body, and in the MH, match automotive carpet in the Van Dam vehicles ? DID it match carpet in any of the other homes on that block? Did the police even test to see if it DID? Did those fibers match carpet in the police cars? DID they test that? (Remember, it was NYLON fibers, which would pretty much be used in automotive type carpeting, not house carpeting.) THINKS ABOUTS THEM WORDS!

I hope I have given you good information, answered your questions, and you take the info, and come to your own conclusion. Whatever that may be.

"Westerfield fibers found on Danielle's body."

I don't know why you would hold the fiber evidence in any higher regard than the bug evidence. Do you know about the micrspectrophotometer? I know it is an advanced fiber testing method that can be used to further compare fibers after all other tests show similarity. Did you know that there were some fibers in this case that appeared similar in all ways tested before being sent to the microspectrophotometer - the criminalist thought they were they same - till the were examined with the microspectrophotometer and found not to be the same - ruled out. I will accept nothing less than this test on the fibers for this reason. As far as I know - only the orange fiber we have been discussing has been examined by the advanced method and still found to be similar - the others - especially all these blue/gray fibers we talk about - were not sent.

Hi, Ya Ya. I love your posts on other threads, but I encourage you to do some transcript reading, or click backwards on these posts and do some research.

Nancy Grace is a twit. She calls for sympathy for poor Brenda who was reduced to running the streets at 2a.m. calling her daughter's name. (Never happened)

The forensic evidence against DW comes down to
1. 1/4" spot of blood on the Motor Home carpet which the dogs never even stopped to investigate, so who knows how long it may have been there.
2. One partial print on one cabinet in the MH. Again, no one knows when it got there, but the dogs never tried to sniff out that area.
3. One hair in the MH sink that was Danielle's. But she had been at his house 3 days earlier, and could have been tracked in on his shoe from the house.
4. 3/16" spot of DNA on his green jacket. That may have been in his house when she was there.

People with better memories than mine can argue fiber minutiae, but the bottom line that I've heard is that there are similar looking fibers associated with Danielle and with DW, which "could or could not" have come from a common source.

Also problematical is that the DA only sought identification, confirmation of items that were likely to condemn DW. There was no, repeat, no effort to identify evidence objectively and then see if it fit the hypothesis that DW could have done it.

So much of what was promised by the prosecution's opening statement, and parroted by the media, has not been delivered. At absolute worse, DW looks "mildy, possibly, maybe" not innocent. But we are only half way through the defense.

Please check the info more. I respect your opinion on many topics, but think you're wrong here.