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

Here's what I think is a weird coincidence. DW gets drunk at Dad's runs in to BVD. What they discussed, we don't know. However, he felt comfortable enough to go into their home and snatch their child. Did he have a plan if DVD or anyone else were to wake up? If he did it, how did he know that he could waltz in that home, knew he would not get confronted, and knew they would not check on their children until the next morning. That's just strange. Was he going to kill the whole household if he were caught leaving with Danielle? Did he have a plan of assault ready if he got caught? Is he just the luckiest perv on the planet? It just doesn't seem like it could be this easy. Had the VDs checked on their kids let's say at 3:00 am, what if a house to house search had gone on? What was going to be his plan then? How did he know he wouldn't run into someone going to the bathroom, or the dog causing a commotion, or the brothers waking up? Did he know the dog didn't bark, and why would he know that? How did he know the parents were asleep or was it before the partiers came home? I need the prosecution to say how he did it, and what time he did it. It's all too strange. For a drunk guy, this was all too easy.

Is anyone curious as to whose laundry shared the load at the dry cleaners? Is it possible that there is a DNA transfer within the cleaning process?

So far the idea that the physical evidence got in the RV by playing there isn't credible to me. It defies probabilities and logic.

The same is true of the lack of DW evidence in the VD home. That is why I favor a theory that Danielle was outside the house, for some reason.

That doesn't clear DW, (who could have seen her wandering about and picked her up offering to search for her missing father) or an Avila-type happened by at the right moment.

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 ?

Much better. I am trying to finish reading all the posts. My explanation will take some time, so I want to reserve it for tomorrow. If you really are interested in the DW trial and it's outcome (you seem genuine), I will explain it all tomorrow.

Please cite the person that gave that tesimony.

uh,,,uh,,,uh,,,, it was Nancy Grace.

""Probality" that Damon knew where Danielle's body was when he said to the Press on Feb 18th, that the searchers should be looking closer to SD=100%."

Now, this statement of Damon's, says a LOT. How in the world would he have a clue as to WHERE the searchers should be looking? How would he know that or if her body had been dumped into the ocean, or off the coast of Oregon? Or anywhere else? That "looking closer to SD" is a killer/killer's statement.

but if I was innocent I would be on the stand implicating the parents.

I don't think he has anything he can testify to that will implicate the parents. It may be that they were irresponsible and their daughter was kidnapped by a stranger.

I don't believe DW knows anything about how Danielle disappeared. (JMO).

See my #419. I'm afraid the answer is more mundane than an "Avila did it" shocker. Looks like it MAY be over before you go if you've still got a couple weeks.

Would you have found OJ not guilty because he acted like the glove didn't fit

no, as I stated before, I would have found him guilty by the facts of the case,and the large amounts of forensic evidence. not my feelings towards the defendent, or the witnesses.

As far as DW goes, if he is PROVEN guilty, then he should fry - but I don't see a lot of proof here, just a small amount of circumstantial evidence and a very small amount of what is said to be DNA evidence. one hair and 2 "spots" is not alot to convince me. I want to see motive, I want to see proof of how the crime was committed and supporting evidence.

Okay, fair. But if he disposed of them through the sink, wouldn't there have been more?

With a longer stay, a struggle and possible sleeping there is more hair and the probability that one ends up in trap goes up to a more reasonable level than if she just entered to play for 15 minutes

<

UMMM, ya lost me there, she was 7 years old. No way she sat still while he was driving. He had to restrict her in some way. ,

A child can be restricted by threats. A mirror would provide him the ability to see behind him.

He went to the Beach, was she still alive, just sitting quietly not touching anything?

Why not. If he promised her she would be ok if she didn't move ? Didn't that sister stay in her room long after the abduction of her sister ?

He didn't kill her before he put her in the MH and he didn't kill her in the MH. When do you think he killed her and when did he dump her body?

My uneducated guess would be either there or close by.

Could be, but the dogs searched the MH 3-4 days after her disappearance, when did DW have time to air out the MH?

How long does it take ?

"I don't believe DW knows anything about how Danielle disappeared."

Neither do I. Never have. Still waiting for Dusek to PROVE that DW knew full well. At this point, all Dusek has done is to prove to me DW didn't do it.

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

And you totally trust her interpretation of the LOOKS on their faces, that she can INTUIT what they are thinking

That she has absolutely no reason to be biased, or taint her description to what she thinks best will make the AUDIENCE watch her show? To keep her job?

Is this true ?

Also, Brenda told the Press on the 20th that she felt a breakthrough on the search was near. Mother's intuition, I guess.

Just ignore those other hairs,fibers,prints you found. They don't mean anything.

So we can ignore the presence of the hairs so long as the police didn't ID every hair within a 10 mile radius. Logical.

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.

And yet you would have us believe that Dannielle would only lose 1 hair during her murder?

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

Thanks Travis. That is why I thought it interesting, if nothing else. I will look forward to what the jury has to say after it is over, if any of them care to speak publicly about the trial.

A more mature person would at least understand the facts before debating them

Give him credit for at least (finally) admitting it.

The same is true of the lack of DW evidence in the VD home. That is why I favor a theory that Danielle was outside the house, for some reason.

If he was carefull, why would he leave any evidence ?

2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense

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