Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
and tainted evidence, and the defense convinced the jury that the evidence was planted.....
it's not a perfect system, but it's better than alot of other countries have. I believe that Westerfield will be found guilty by a jury that is ruled by it's emotions, not by evidence or fact. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but in this touchy-feely society we live in, he was convicted the minute someone pointed at "the creepy neighbor" and the media got wind of it. And those are the things that scare me to death.
Come on. Is this what you would attempt to try someone with. Whether or not they can prove God exists?
How about asking questions of those that have been following this case from the beginning, or asking them to source info or point you to a source, and after getting the information, coming to an informed conclusion?
Henry Lee testified for O.J., big deal. Yeah he's innocent.
Here is a site that tells what determines certification and a snippit from the site.
http://www.entsoc.org/bce/
What Are the Requirements to Become a Board Certified Entomologist?
The requirements to become a BCE are as follows: an academic degree in entomology or a related science, experience as a practicing entomologist, a passing mark on a general qualifying examination, and a passing mark on at least one specialty examination. Click here for a list of topics to study. The degree and experience requirements can be met in any of the following ways: An earned degree in entomology or related field, with the required certifiable entomological work experience: Doctoral degree and one year experience, or Masters degree and two years experience, or Bachelors degree and three years experience or..........................
Jurors are instructed to listen to all evidence, all testimony, and not TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS until the trial ends and the JUDGE GIVES THEM FINAL INSTRUCTIONS.
You have, by your statement, indicated that you already decided, and it doesn't matter what the rest of the case produces.
If you ever get called for jury duty, make sure you make the above statement to them during selection.
One hair transfered from Brenda makes it to the guys sink trap ? That is on par with the same probaility I have of winning a McDonalds lottery.
DNA evidence is very important also, but one very small spot ( however did they find it?) does not convince me of Westerfield's guilt.
Why does the size matter?
I want the Prosecution to expalin to me how he was able to get into the home, snatch Dannielle, drag her and carry her to wherever (the MH was not parked at the house) and leave no trace of him at her house or her in his or in his car.
Apparently someone did it.
But yet - one drop of DNA is in his motor home?
Hair, blood or blood like subtance = DNA, plus fingerprints ?
why did she not cry out?
She may have
if he murdered her in her bedroom - why no fibers from his clothes?I doubt she was murdered there, is that the case being made ?
no DNA or hair from him in her room or in her entire house?
I doubt that is true. What may be true is the police didn't gather any.
but yet one single hair was in the MH?
It was my understanding that a hair was found in trap ?
Then the cops wouldn't even have noticed him, as everyone knows they can tell if you are guilty or not based on "a hose.":-)
Can I ask you something? Are you that new to these threads that you haven't read some of the discussions of probable scenarios for this ?
How so ? Would it eliminate the existance of the hair, fingerprints, blood etc belonging to Danielle ?
This is like the logicall fallacy that because X exists, y cannot exist.
You mean nutty scenarios for this.
Don't you have a life? Is that all you have to do is jump into the middle of a thread, tell everyone they are wrong (even though they have spent weeks absorbing and evaluating the information, and you have spent very little or none), and try to make fun of them?
Did you have something to contribute or are you just here to make smart-aleck remarks to others?
If you have opinions about the case, state them. If you have information we don't have, say so, Show it.
Well,.....
She said that Dusek has dimantled the 2nd bug man just as he wrecked the first bug man as determined by JUROR REACTION, rolling their eyes, lack of note taking, smirking at the bug man's testimony etc.
I'm not there, I am only passing on what she, a JUROR EYE WITNESS, has been saying. It wasn't just the expert witness fees, she is saying that AS SEEN IN JUROR REACTION, Dusek has shredded the certainty of the bug life time lines, and put in so much doubt that the jurors are basically laughing at the bug men.
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.