Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
No DW DNA on Danielle.
No witnesses for DvD's whereabouts while the Pizza Gang was at Dad's.
No witnesses for Danielle's whereabouts for a 10 (?) hour period.
No witnesses to DW at the Dahesa site.
Some fibers on Danielle not linked to DW.
Since MH was a common feature of the neighborhood, child could play in it, leaving behind evidence that could later be examined for fibers and DNA.
= Reasonable Doubt.
My theory: Danielle was outside Friday evening, Saturday morning and was abducted by an Avila-type. The body was not dumped immediately but was stored (car trunk?). When DW was arrested, the perp dropped off the body.
Too bad the defense lawyer doesn't know this. Such testimony by a neighbor would bolster the claim the kids played there.
I live in Tucson and it is desert, the Sonoran Desert. We have lots of trees, among other types of growth. Flies, too, of course.
And for him to duplicate the conditions he must do the following:
Allow for DRYER than normal conditions (which accelerate fly activity)
Allow for close access to water (more food source from moss,etc on water surface,decaying plants) which provides increased fly population.
Allow for trash/garbage as MORE food source, providing an EVEN LARGER FLY POPULATION and places (inside fast food containers, bags, etc) for flies to LAY MORE EGGS on that food, CREATING AN EVEN LARGER FLY POPULATION, and (drum roll please....!.....!......!.....!)
A DEAD DOG CARCASS not a HUNDRED FEET AWAY from Danielle PROVIDING ANOTHER FOOD SOURCE, and giving off a smell that flys could detect for MILES, (the searchers said it was VERY STRONG), KEEPING AN EVEN LARGER POPULATION OF FLIES right NEAR Danielle.
I think her body was only there about 1 day before they found it. What do you think?
Secondly, why should a juror believe that one entomologist that differs is better than two that concur?
Remember that it's very likely that not one juror knows anything of the science beyond what they are hearing in the courtroom.
Lastly, do not forget that Feldman doesn't make the big bucks for nothing. This is his thing. For all you know he may damage Goff pretty well and may highlight the prosecution's depseration in the process.
Do not forget that Faulkner was HIRED BY THE PROSECUTION.
It is reasonable to assume that all the jurors don't see all evidence and experts the same. You act as if each will see it through your eyes. That's an unwise assumption, to say the least.
All we need to do to be reminded of poor decisions on Dusek's part is to think back on 180-Frank. I'm putting my money on Feldman's experts (one of which reported first to Dusek & Co.) looking best in the end.
Yes, they can so one must keep a high degree of skepticism and reconcile the testimony with common sense. That response I gave was to prior posts who appeared to me to be making the claim that the last guys bug testimony was unimpeachable. In fact with the same set of data its likely the same expert could testify different conclusions. All he needs to do is qualify his testimony.
Based on opportunity? The part Kim refers to where supposedly he wasn't where he said?
What vehicle did he use?
Why wouldn't police use TIRE TRACKS from the scene, if they could find them? (strike that, obvious answer)
Yeah, let's stick with the first two questions.
TIA (thanks in advance)
In this case the label is important because it paints a particular image in the mind of listeners. I suppose you think everyone is running to their geography books to look up the definition. Get real !!!!
They are imagining a typical desert and the area in question is not......period !!!!!!!
The Bug Experts have provided a reasonable hypothesis. Either DW is innocent or had an accomplice. Why would an accomplice dump the body in plain sight? So that DW can implicate him/her/them on the appeal?
= Reasonable doubt.
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.