Skip to comments.
2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense: (Dusek Melting Down Before Juries Eyes!!)
NBC/San Diego ^
| July 22, 2002
| NBC/San Diego
Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500, 501-520, 521-540 ... 1,621-1,635 next last
To: Jrabbit
Little ditch or little stream or whatever she calls herself LOL........I prefer Tiny Puddle.
To: Southflanknorthpawsis
My guess is that this is the truthful observation. I really doubt Judge Mudd would tolerate a lot of overt emotion and jurors making noticeable eye contact, etc.I agree with you, it seemed almost as if the "bug guy" was connecting with the jury.
I watched it, and he would look at the lawyer during the question and then turn his attention to the jury and explain his answer. It appeared that HE was making direct eye contact with the jury.
502
posted on
07/22/2002 8:15:54 PM PDT
by
demsux
To: cyncooper
Once again you are spreading a lie.
The orange fiber in the necklace was stated in the witness' notes as being DULL orange.
She state the others were BRIGHT orange.
That was the testimony. Similar EXCEPT in color.
To: VRWC_minion
If someone claimed they can prove a negative they should have no problem proving God doesn't/does exist. Hint: Its not possible. I gather you have not read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.
To: connectthedots
attorneys ARE NOT 'officers of the court'. How about in Alameda County? This page, from the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, lists attorneys as "officers of the court".
To: the Deejay
Several people said that it was false info.
Knowing some of the dingbats that my wife works with I wouldn't be suprised if it was false info.
To: cyncooper
I agree with Rivers' assessment. I was listening to the testimony during lunch today (11-12), and I thought Dusek was getting the guy to admit some pretty interesting stuff. KUSI (independent station) will be doing a recap at 9 pm tonight. I don't know if they have a live feed or not.
And ... I agree I thought the guy lacked a lot of credibility.
To: VRWC_minion
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. YEP. Just because you find something NOT CREDIBLE does not keep it from being existant.
Explain how all the crop circles all over the world got there, using your probabilities and logic.
To: Greg Weston
But then he has to explain why this stuff is "disposed". Do you really believe that ?
To: Henrietta
An attorney could be disciplined by the bar for lying, but such lie may not be used to find his client guilty. This happens as often as a cold day in hell.
To: Politicalmom
Yup, big lie, but so well-worded!
To: cyncooper
Feldman is evidently going to call some media people and just got a tape delivered that he had subpoened. THis sounds very interesting. Sounds like you are saying after he presents it, the case is closed.
To: demsux
Yep......I think Tiny Puddle just wants to be a big leaguer and thinks this is her springboard. I don't buy anything she reports.
I tried to listen several times during the trial lunchbreaks and I finally decided it was not a serious or truthful treatment.
When RR talks to Tiny Puddle and they play back and forth, it feels more like I'm watching David Letterman send out that Rufus guy(I think that's his name).
To: Politicalmom
Yea, except for her comment that DW was guilty because he new about the father daughter dance, that is the most biased thing she has said. I posted it on a thread last week? I remember talking about it.
I kinda like Ricki Klayman, she seems to give both sides balance.
514
posted on
07/22/2002 8:26:49 PM PDT
by
gigi
To: UCANSEE2
Every expert says that jurors make up their mind after opening statements. I'm just being honest about it.
515
posted on
07/22/2002 8:27:05 PM PDT
by
Hildy
To: VRWC_minion; crystalk
crystalk: DW certainly did NOT dispose of the body, so perhaps it would be best to start at Feb 16 with the body disposal, and work BACK!
Why so certain the expert is correct ?
Why do you think they call it expert testimony? Why are you so sure the DNA testimony is correct?
To: Poohbah
This is sounding more like the OJ trial.
To: Southflanknorthpawsis
I think Rick and Little River just want to ride the VD Gravy Train. It's much more interesting to make up a visual of how the jurors are reacting than to simply say they are not at all. Even if it is true what Tiny Puddle is saying-- how does she know that the jurors aren't reacting to Dusek's questions (i.e. Dew point vs. temperture--lol)?
To: CAPPSMADNESS
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.
This is similar to my own prediction several weeks ago. I'd only add, that after reading some of the postings on these threads, there may be several who would actually get off on watching an innocent man put to death.
519
posted on
07/22/2002 8:30:58 PM PDT
by
pyx
To: Henrietta
He has to know they will lie, not just suspect it. Thanks. That woulda been my guess.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500, 501-520, 521-540 ... 1,621-1,635 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson