Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
I have 5 gears in my car, odds are 20% if I put it in gear, that gear will be first. Then for second, 20%. Third, fourth fifth, 20%. For me to ever get from first to fifth, I have -- .2*.2*.2*.2*.2= 0.032% -- an order of magnitude less likely that your evidence scenario.
And yet, I do it several times a day, despite the odds being stacked against me.
The point being not that my analysis was valid, just that you are talking nonsense with some numbers.
I think if you believe someone else dumped the body, then you really have to acquit Westerfield. There would simply be too many unanswered questions to convict him.
Despite the intense scrutiny DW was under (surveillance, phone records, GPS tracker on his vehicle, etc.), the prosecution did not turn up any evidence of a possible accomplice. Of course, that doesn't absolutely prove he didn't conspire with someone else to commit the crime. But I think to convict you would need evidence of a conspiracy.
The burden of proof falls on the prosecution. The benefit of the doubt must go to the defendant.
That is precisely what I was doing and was reacting to someone who presented with a claim that such testimony was in evidence. Those with knowledge of the testimony wouldn't be misleading would they ? Someone actually testified that the dogs proved without a shadow of doubt that Danielle could not have been in the RV in the few weeks before ?
I think you have hit on one of the most repeated statements and thoughts by a majority of posters on these threads.
Another interesting coincidence. They do add up don't they ?
He has a special slide-rule that says all of that is very common, but it is very unusual with Danielle's.
Pi times the cube root of the mean plausibility, doncha know ...?
You and I have not seen the jury, have we? NO.
Remember your history, in the 1960 debate, those who only HEARD it on the radio said Nixion won, those who SAW it on TV said JFK won.
My point is, it is worth mentioning that the only EYE WITNESS reporter I have heard is getting a very different impression from the JURY REACTION than many DW fans are getting from the radio and TV WITHOUT SEEING THE JURY REACTION.
or
Seven years experience
An established number of continuing education units for the three year period prior to application
Plus
Would you have found OJ not guilty because he acted like the glove didn't fit...when actually the glove was immersed in water and shrunk, and as bad as an actor as he is, he was able to act himself out of that...but I believe that jury was a bunch of ignorant people...plus this jury knew what they were going to do...they even had a party the night before the verdict...the trial was a sham....
As far as Westerfield, there's alot more evidence then meets the eye....anyone can rip apart any piece of evidence, especially since OJ...Cochran made a sham of forensics...yes there were mistakes, but they planted no evidence...MARK MY WORDS CAPPS..
You seem like a lovely person....I hope every juror would be as fair and open minded as you....
FreeGards From The Socialist Republic Of NY...
Karen AKA KLT
How is Dusek going to be toast after Westerfield is convicted?
To me it means the dog didn't react. Nothing more. Only a positive reaction would be notable and even then it might be a false positive.
That is all any of us want. We want the jury to consider all the evidence and come to a FAIR and JUST conclusion based on PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
If the INSECT STUFF is not that accurate, why did DUSEK hire FAULKNER to begin with? Why has DUSEK used FAULKNER repeatedly in other trials to win cases ?
Anybody can walk into an OPEN home and carry away a solidly sleeping 7 year old on his shoulder without leaving clues. Just wear gloves and get rid of the clothes and shoes after.
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.