Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
I was telling the other poster to say things to your face, not behind your back, no matter what those things were. We all want it that way, From the FRONT.
As far as me being on the DW INNOCENT, well, I am on the DW is NOT GUILTY as FAR AS I CAN TELL and I HAVE BELIEVED that based on constant research and review of all pertinent information from the very beginning. I don't see a way in the world he could have done what it is said he did, and I do see ways many others (strangers, friends of the family) could. Other than Neal's alibi, he could be a suspect on my short list.
IF something indisputable comes up, I will change my mind.
There is a possibility the Danielle case could be linked to the Samantha case. There are some weird coincidences going on that need to be researched. I and others are doing so. The linking info was pulled from the public. But not quick enough for FR posters.
We will see what tomorrow brings.
Maybe it was a bad recipe.
It's one thing to engage in a flame war and admit that it gets ugly on both sides. It's quite another to point fingers only at others while one wipes the accelerant from one's lips.
The one I was asking about ,Chris, went into some kind of intelligence group (A spy, he liked to say). Thought someday I might run into him again.
What the heck does that mean? Watch my behind? Watch my back? What does that mean? Is it a threat?? Is it telling me to watch the news..WHAT?
I am guessing where the prosecution is going by the reference to the activity of the animals at the scene and the questions of the bug guy about how the fly's got there (his answer was they were there).
Hawaii is an interesting place. Within each valley formed by the volcano there are places that have no outside access to other areas. Each area is like a little island.
A scientist familiar with Hawaii is not going to to assume that what takes place in one environment is true for another environment. I believe the prosecutor is going to provide two angles. First, he will make the case that the larva got there much later by animal activity (flies following the animals). Second, he will provide other evidence of the time of death (ie the amount of damage done by the animals, the condition of the body etc.)
He will give the juror's at least some basis to discount the bug guys and at the same time keep their other conclusions consistant.
My best guess.
The random coincidences that occur in everyday life provide a rich soil for false but seemingly undeiable connections between events and between people and events.
Here's a good article to study: Coincidences: Remarkable or Random?, Skeptical Inquirer magazine : September/October 1998.
"You don't believe in telepathy?" My friend, a sober professional, looked askance. "Do you?" I replied. "Of course. So many times I've been out for the evening and suddenly became worried about the kids. Upon calling home, I've learned one is sick, hurt himself, or having nightmares. How else can you explain it?"Such episodes have happened to us all and it's common to hear the words, "It couldn't be just coincidence." Today the explanation many people reach for involves mental telepathy or psychic stirrings. But should we leap so readily into the arms of a mystic realm? Could such events result from coincidence after all?
...
Clearly, unspecified improbable coincidences occur daily to everyone, and these coincidences are most likely the result of randomness. If the data set is large enough, coincidences are sure to appear, as demonstrated with the first 100 decimal digits of p. The chance of tossing five straight heads is only 3 percent, but for 100 tosses the chance becomes 96 percent. Though applied in a different context, Ramsey theory (Scientific American, July 1990) states that "Every large set of numbers, points, or objects necessarily contains a highly regular pattern." It is not necessary to posit mysterious forces to explain coincidences.
That's the "DW is not guilty" committee ! Thankyewverymuch.
And we haven't had the elections yet.
In #927, I responded: " As for your implication that someone tried to remove Danielle's hair from the MH, that IMO, does tend to strain reason. There was hair, of all types, found throughout the MH and much of it was varying shades of blond".
And then in #934, you stated "He didn't Danielles hair was there."
Now, either you are contradicting yourself, misunderstood my response, or I'm just not seeing your point. In any case, I'm having difficulty making sense what you are trying to communicate here.
As to your #934 comment: "My kids would have left more than two prints in one spot.
I'm not sure what you are implying, in this case, either. If it's as some have suggested, that DW wiped the MH of prints, that, IMO, has been pretty well disproved by court testimony. There were many other prints in the MH and DW could not have selectively wiped only Danielle's prints away (except for the one). Also, consider that none of the "pizza gang" left a single clear print at the VD's, after their little pizza party, showing that usable prints are not always left at a scene. If it's something else you had in mind, please give me more information to go on. TIA
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.