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

NBC/San Diego ^ | July 22, 2002 | NBC/San Diego

[Freedom2specul8]

WRT:River explanation..thank you for that..

[VRWC_minion]

I don't expect absolute proof

Someone here does.

[NatureGirl]

Hi, John. I was actually surprised by the Prosecution on this. They hired Faulkner, he gave them the approx. date of Feb. 16th - why didn't they (and LE) start digging up some credible theory/evidence on DW having an accomplice? Or at least throw some "hints" to that effect out to the jury when they had the chance?

[gigi]

"They have hired at least one insect expert, M. Lee Goff of Hawaii, to reanalyze the evidence."

So he has hired a Bug Guy from Hawaii to refute the testimony from the Bug Guy from Indiana.


But has he studied California flies???

[crypt2k]

And, anyway, if DW has such an aptitude for spiriting away little children without leaving behind tracks or witnesses, then why is he up for Murder I in the first place?

Very hard to understand how DW, would abandon humanity to steal a child and kill her, after 50 years of (by most standards) a fairly successful life. He has even designed and patented medical inventions.

In a curious parallel, however, Avila worked at Guidant, a manufacturer of medical devices.

Does this give a glimpse of nisight into their psyches? Do they essentially see other humans as machines, composed of interchangeble parts, existing for thier pleasure?

[Yeti]

Your shifting isn't random.

Neither is falsified evidence.

[John Jamieson]

Your last answer seems weird. Maybe I'm losing it.

I thought we were talking about the dog hitting. I didn't say it wasn't important, just that 180Frank has no credibility. He was not sure himself.

[Greg Weston]

OK. If Westerfield is convicted at some point of MURDER (not necessarily this trial) you pay. If he is aquitted at some point of murder I pay.

[UCANSEE2]

An attorney may not put on the stand a witness whom the attorney knows will not tell the truth.

Here's a tricky question.

So, then, with what the public saw from the very start, the police interviews, the press interviews, and then the testimony at the Prelim Hearing, HOW in all good conscience, COULD DUSEK put the VAN DAMS, and DENISE on the stand ?

[cynwoody]

Why ? If he had an accomplice is not guilty ? I don;t get it. If I rob a bank and someone else drives, I must be acquited ?

Of course not. The gas chamber had two seats, didn't it?

If he had an accomplice, then there should be an extra seat at the defense table, and the prosecution needs to convince the jury that's what went down.

But the prosecution in the present case has not introduced any evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy. Thus, if it is shown that someone else dumped the body, you can't therefore jump to the conclusion that the body dumper was DW's accomplice. On the contrary, the new evidence raises serious doubt about the prosecution's whole theory of the case.

[Travis McGee]

Even a genius can't see tiny fibers and blood droplets with the naked eye in a big hurry.

He also couldn't get rid of the thousands of images of LITTLE GIRLS including LITTLE GIRLS being GANG RAPED BY TEN MEN on his computer, so I'd guess that his sick compulsions were stronger than his intelligence.

So he found himself with a dead girl, and a disposal problem, and even a genius couldn't erase all the evidence.

[dalereed]

Question for those that have been watching the trial.

A woman that my wife works with said that when she was watching the trial there was evidence that his DNA was found on her neckless. Is that true or false?

If there was his DNA on her neckless his goose is cooked!

[John Jamieson]

It was too late, they had already charged him. Plus, they seem to have been supremely overconfident in there case. Pride can destroy people.

[crypt2k]

The logical thing would have been to dump the computer and all clothes worn during the abduction.

Were tires tracks analyzed at the dump site?

[VRWC_minion]

Do you really think a hair falls out, on cue, every fifteen minutes? I have no reason to doubt this drop rate, but don't you think it likely that this is an "on average" figure? This would indicate to me, that multiple hairs could have been dropped, or, on the other hand, possibly none were dropped during the time she would have been in the MH. It's all an unknown factor. In fact, we have no way of knowing at what rate of Danielle's hair loss compared to the median, or average drop rate of hair.

I got this tidbit from someone who was making a case that its quite possible to shed 100+ hairs per day. She was making the point that its very possible that Danielle left behind hair in the RV if she played there. At first it sounded like alot until I converted it to minutes.

My intial thoughts were than most of those would be shed while sleeping and your head is in contact with a pillow or while bathing. But so as not to argue my point to much I settled on agreeing that the average would be 1 every 15 minutes. Because even if its ten times that amount the probability she lost it when she was playing there is next to impossible.

[John Jamieson]

Grossly false.

[NatureGirl]

...that his DNA was found on her neckless

Not true. There was no DW DNA found anywhere on Danielle. No hairs, no skin under her fingernails.

[UCANSEE2]

I have no idea. I have not been following the trial except for every now and then.

And THE ABOVE is the most commonly heard statement from those that get on the threads, INSIST that DW is GUILTY, and that anyone that doesn't believe them is an IDIOT (or worse).

I would like to Thank you, WILLYONE, for at least being honest enough to admit this. ALL of the other posters on here would be happy to help point you to information, links, testimony, or answer your questions, to help you get the information you need, to then make an INFORMED CONCLUSION. Whatever that ends up being, it ends up.

[crypt2k]

I guess he did dump the abduction suit, though. That was smart.

[Stiv]

If it wasn't important, how come the defense didn't harp on how long scent lingers? (or did they and I just missed it?)

You must have missed it. Feldman made a VERY BIG point out of it when he had Haskell on re-direct.