Posted on 07/13/2002 6:28:25 AM PDT by FresnoDA
WRT: the jacket and why didn't he burn it..That very thing crossed my mind too... Why didn't he just burn the green jacket or get rid of it. So we have to ask, did he know the blood was on there before he took it to the cleaner? Maybe he thuoght it was his own blood, from when he scratched up his arms??Hi "Kim4VRWC's":
Thank you for asking. I joined b/c of the Westerfield debate/discussion, mainly because Court TV was driving me mad. I find the input you and many others here provide provacative and informative. So that's why I'm here.
You can see my previous posts about the "thought it was his own blood" theory, but the "did he know the blood was on there?" question is a good one. My argument was based on the prosecution's assumption that he took it to the dry cleaner BECAUSE he wanted to clean the blood BECAUSE OF the source -- i.e., he KNEW there was blood on it.. If he took it merely to clean a stain of his own blood, then his actions are innocous at best.
I appreciate your insight because it helps balance out this board.
Stiv
California Criminal Trial Procedure click me
rebuttal evidence
: evidence that tends to refute or discredit an opponent's evidence
STATUTES
C. Control by Court.
1. [§542] In General.
2. Over Witnesses.
(a) [§543] In General.
(b) [§544] Examination by Judge of Witness or Defendant Who Testifies.
(c) [§545] Restriction of Cross-Examination.
3. Admission and Exclusion of Evidence.
(a) [§546] Restriction of Cumulative and Rebuttal Evidence.
(b) [§547] Exclusion of Evidence on Court's Own Motion.
(c) Reversible Error.
(1) [§548] Admission of Inadmissible Evidence.
(2) [§549] Exclusion of Admissible Evidence.
Can find the explanation for these statutes..
here
http://california.lp.findlaw.com/ca01_codes/index.html
http://california.lp.findlaw.com/ca01_codes/ http://www.lawsource.com/also/usa.cgi?ca
CALIFORNIA JURY PROCESS
GLOSSARY
http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/superior/index.html
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/2002/titletwo/
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/2002/titlefour/
I believe this is the portion being questioned. Later in the transcript the weight is mentioned again. (I am on record as saying she sounds like she is saying "blond" not "brown" to me):
Brenda: Um, I don't really know... She has brown short hair, we just had it cut, it's right to her shoulders...Um, she's probably about 60 pounds. And um, um, I don't know how tall. I don't, I just can't....
In fact, reviewing the transcript, it is proven Brenda said "60 pounds" earlier, because after they discuss about how tall Danielle would be the dispatcher repeats back the previous info she was given, that is "
Brenda: Yeah. Yeah. Maybe a little shorter.
Dispatcher: Probably about 60 pounds, right?
Brenda: Yeah.
You know, I thought of this after my earlier reply to you! He must have been under the mistaken notion that drycleaning would destroy DNA. (JMO)
staring down is a crime!
The phrase that some think they are hearing is "6 feet tall"
You need to listen to the tape to realize how close it sounds. Nonetheless, she is saying 60 pounds.
I don't know about official. I heard the call very clearly the first time it was played for the public and was surprised when Court TV or some such put out the first transcript and had the six feet thing in there. The context is very clear, and I just pointed out that the dispatcher repeats the sixty pound thing back to her after they figure out the approx height for Danielle.
How does the dispatcher know to return to the earlier info Brenda gave of 60 pounds? It is because that is what Brenda said earlier.
"The Criminal Justice Establishment," by Mark Green, written around the late 1970's predicted this day would come, and that we would see even worse in that there is a subtle bureaucratic self-creating need for more and more police, prisons, judges, prosecutors, bailiffs, lawyers, jailors, etc. built into the system. Green noted first that the actual amount of crime was basically a statistical constant except when new laws are passed and in that case crime increases since new conduct is criminalized. When the war on drugs was commenced, nearly every police agency in the country requested extra funding for the coming year based upon rising crime rates. The crime rates rose at first because of new laws being passed. Then, the agencies receive the additional funding and were able to hire additional officers or agents to put on the streets. A higher total number of officers on the street led logically to a higher number of arrests and therefore a higher number of crimes reported to the federal government which gives its' annual report on the rising crime rate. Thence, each year, each agency would urge an increase in its' budget based upon rising crime rates so that it could hire more officers or agents and as a result would be able to show even higher crime rates for the next year's budget.
This is the Crime Control Establishment and its' raw material for manufacture is human beings, the destruction of personality, of families, and of freedom. It has led us to be ranked first in incarceration rate in the history of the world and two of our states to be ranked third and fourth. It has led to a revolving door for most people that once experience the system because the system is designed to inspire into the product hatred so great that he or she will surly rebel, but without the political sophistication to organize that rebellion. It politically marginalizes anyone who happens to get caught in its' web by taking away their right to vote and their right to own a handgun so that they cannot vote for change or lead a movement for change without fear of assassination in that they must remain unarmed.
And the Beast continues to grow at a record setting pace. Now we hire private firms to build and manage our prisons so that they and we make even a greater profit from imprisoning the population. Thus, the motivation to incarcerate increases. It is from this Beast that we had to be taught the hard lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge. There must be no resistance to the Crime Control Establishment. There is simply too much profit there.
In short, good luck out there; keep your head down, and never plead guilty. Don't take the government's train if you are ever the man in the cross hairs, but count on your fellow citizens and their commons sense and you will come out much better, most of the time.
Naahhh, he could have just taken an eye-dropper and put a few drops of clorox on the spot. Out damn spot, out!
sw
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.