2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense: (Dusek Melting Down Before Juries Eyes!!)

How do you explain the other blonde hairs in the sink drain that were not Danielle's?

Why is there a need to explain it ? The only relevant hairs are Danielles ?

If so, how do you explain the physical evidence in the RV and on Danielle ?

If, in fact, DW didn't dispose of the body, that would mean someone else did (unless you believe she wandered off into the desert and died). Now, one theory would be that the person who dumped the body was DW's confederate in crime. But, I think a simpler and more likely assumption would be that the someone is the real killer, and the physical evidence has other explanations (e.g., an attempted frameup).

By the way, I seem to recall one of the victim's parents' circle of decadent friends is a retired detective and thus wise in the ways of murder investigations (not to suggest anything, of course).

For some reason those that find the parents conduct appalling want to see Westerfield acquited to punish the parents.

Can you justify that remark?

As far as I can tell, most people on these threads want DW to be convicted, if a JURY finds him GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF not, they want the killer found , no matter who it is and that person TRIED. Then , the same thing for that person.

They also want the killer of Samantha to face trial and justice.

I guess the statement by you is your opinion, but I would remind you it came out of your head, not from anyone else.

The 'blood' and hair evidence are no proof at all

My wife would tend to disagree. So in order to support your belief you must argue the evidence doesn't exist ? Can you do better ?

"Danielle has fibers on her that belong to Westerfield"

I love it when someone finds a piece of testimony that I missed. Thank you so much. Please cite the person that gave that tesimony.

You stated

The presence of the hair in the trap. The likelihood that a hair would have shed, plus found its way in the drain, plus got caught and not washed down is slim to none in my opinion.

Someone elses hair was shed and caught and not washed down, why is it hard to believe hers wasn't?

Wow. Somebody else MAKING up statistics. Aren't we impressed??? (eyes rolling)

So, when is Westerfield himself going to take the stand and defend himself? I know he doesn't have to, but if I was innocent I would be on the stand implicating the parents.

If, in fact, DW didn't dispose of the body, that would mean someone else did

Assuming that someone else did dispose of body would that make DW innocent or an accessory ?

The point about the Rick Roberts Show in-court reporter "Little River" (as he calls her) is that she has a front row seat and is able to watch the second by second JUROR REACTION to what is said between the lawyers and witnesses.

She is saying that the JUROR REACTION to the bug witnesses was very skeptical.

Unless you are a blowfly on the courtroom wall, you have not seen even one JUROR REACTION, have you?

However, the glove did not fit...reasonable doubt ...

Because we have two of them in basic agreement, one paid for by the prosecution and one paid for by the defense?

You have to remember, no matter how bad you thought feldman trashed the dog handler, the dog handler's supervisor was put in front of the jury and confirmed the hit that the police relied on. And the defense's counter point (detective) wasn proven incorrect as well.

Quoting from myself:

"There was a reaction at the MH and defense has not denied that danielle was in the MH..so does it even matter? "After his testimony, the prosecution called Frazee's supervisor, Rosemary Redditt, a retired teacher and also a volunteer canine searcher. She said she was at the impound lot with Frazee and his dog Feb. 6. She said she witnessed the dog react to the storage compartment of the vehicle. She said the dog "turned around real fast," sat, looked at Frazee and barked. "

naturally, the defense attacked the credibility. "The defense has suggested that 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, who lived two doors away, might have sneaked into the motor home at some point while playing in the neighborhood, which might explain how the girl's blood, hair and fingerprints were found inside the vehicle. "

"Detective James Tomsovic, who testified earlier as a prosecution witness, said yesterday that he was at the police impound lot Feb. 6 and didn't see the dog react to the motor home. In a report, Tomsovic said the dog showed no reaction. Under cross-examination by prosecutor Jeff Dusek, Tomsovic acknowledged he arrived at the lot after Frazee and might have missed the dog's reaction. " "

I love it when someone finds a piece of testimony that I missed. Thank you so much. Please cite the person that gave that tesimony.

I am new to this and willing to correct my info as I go along. It was mentioned to me that Danielle had fibers on her body that were consistant with those in the RV. I assume RV belonged to Westerfield. Thanks for any corrections.

I can't listen to Roberts anymore. He is so condescending towards anyone who does not agree with him

That may be. I didn't hear any of his opinion so can't say. I was forced to find another means to follow the trial because I couldn't get the tv channel to work ont the internet. I saw MizS. said she did a reboot but I didn't try it.

What exactly did he say because I am surprised anyone would claim to prove a negative. I understand and can accept your argument. It is the same argument used to prove DW was not in the Van Dam home.

There is no evidence there, and the dogs did not track his scent into their home.

One has to use their own judgment, ultimately, to decide whether this is proof.

I would state to you that there could be evidence of a person entering a house, and dogs tracking their scent, and they could have never been in it. Yet, you would accept those things as ABSOLUTE PROOF. Am I right?

I can show you have Danielle's HAIR and DNA got in the MH without her ever entering. But they are being used as PROOF.

At some point you have to accept a negative as proof. And we could argue this till hell freezes over.

The main point is whether there is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Danielle was in the MH on/after 02/01/02, and was taken from there and killed by the operator of the MH, which would be DW.

The ~~defense~~ has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (or to a "moral certainty" for those who read LaFave) that DW killed Danielle.

prosecution

And THEN the supervisor testified that they allowed the dog to sniff the inside of the compartment, including the shovel, and the dog did not react.

"She is saying that the JUROR REACTION to the bug witnesses was very skeptical. "

Trav, Were you listening? Did she explain what they were doing to give her that impression? Did it get worse after dusek pointed out his fees? I am curious if dusek picked up on that too...and maybe that's why he rubbed in it with per hour charges testimony.

He is so condescending towards anyone who does not agree with him (Westerfield being guilty) and if the person tries to reason and show proof, Rick Roberts actually gets angry with the caller!!

Where have I seen that tactic before ?

2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense

Expert Says Fly Infestations Show When Danielle's Body Was Dumped