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

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

[juzcuz]

Unusually Dry---

Check this out--

Late last night when I was reading Det. Tomsovic's Test. of June 19th---Morning 1 He talking about conditions at the site--

Q: And in your investigation I believe you determined that the last precipitation in that area was on February 17 of 2002.
A: Based on Meteorological Records, Yes.
Q: What did you mean to communicate by the last Precipitation?
A: Rain, Heavy Dew, anything that could have altered the scene due to weather activity.

Now this bug guy Haskell, talked about fly colonization between 14-21. Says "impossible" for body to be there before the 13th. Later, Haskell and Dusek argue over unusually dry conditions, etc.
Well, Thomsovic's statement says that -It was very wet on the 17th...and here he was on the (27)?? concerned that "rain/or/moisture" would alter the crime scene.

[Jaded]

Would you want your young child testifying in a capital murder trial? The point could be that they are trying to avoid doing just that.

[cyncooper]

we just have Brenda's word that she didn't even know Westerfield.

No, we have Westerfield's word for it, too. Part of his interview with Det. Redden was played for the jury and is in evidence.

[VRWC_minion]

ould you want your young child testifying in a capital murder trial? The point could be that they are trying to avoid doing just that.

As the defense attorney if wouldn't care if it was what was needed to get my client off. I certainly wouldn'tc roll the dice on just this bug stuff. Way too risky to bet my clients life on.

As a parent, I wouldn't have much say if my kid was subpeoned.

[crystalk]

Am I the only one who sees these constant sidebars, and the immediate giving of a further day(s)-off in the case, just after having HAD 2 weeks off, etc., as an indicator that major new facts bearing on the case are being learned by the judge and the attorneys?

What on earth IS all this discussion in a case where the Prosec. has already rested, and that might have been thought rather cut&dried, routine, from here on?

I continue to think the Avila connection has a 40% chance of being real.

[VRWC_minion]

Check this out--

I don't get the point. Remember I am new.

[Jaded]

From Feldman's opening statement:

You heard it in Mr. Dusek's opening statement. These are his friends. Mr. Westerfield observed the behaviors Of those women as they flirted from table to table, as they Moved from table to table, as they danced from table to table, As they drank from table to table. And Mr. Westerfield Purchased a drink for Mrs. Van Dam on that very day, the 25th. But she didn't know him. They didn't know each other. They Just lived two houses down. They didn't know each other. At Least, that's the testimony of Brenda Van Dam.

[cyncooper]

It is very unattractive to constantly belittle another poster behind her back. Perhaps you would like to direct your comments to someone in particular?

Gossip does not buttress your opinion.

[Henrietta]

I disagree with your interpretation of this case. It doesn't say that attorneys aren't "officers of the court," it says that attorneys are not "officers" in the ordinary meaning of that term.

Here, the Court said
"It has been stated many times that lawyers are `officers of the court.' One of the most frequently repeated statements to this effect appears in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 378. The Court pointed out there, however, that an attorney was not an `officer' within the ordinary meaning of that term. Certainly nothing that was said in Ex parte Garland or in any other case decided by this Court places attorneys in the same category as marshals, bailiffs, court clerks or judges. Unlike these officials a lawyer is engaged in a private profession, important though [413 U.S. 717, 729] it be to our system of justice. In general he makes his own decisions, follows his own best judgment, collects his own fees and runs his own business. The word `officer' as it has always been applied to lawyers conveys quite a different meaning from the word `officer' as applied to people serving as officers within the conventional meaning of that term." Id., at 405 (footnote omitted).

One needs to read the case in its entirety to understand why the term "officers" is important to this particular case. You can't just go thru and pick out sentences out of context and then say that they mean what you want them to mean.

[Jaded]

Why is the bug guy not "iffy" when the DA's office uses him?

[EllaMinnow]

Why, yes, you are.

[cyncooper]

Save your advice.

[Mrs.Liberty]

Well, one of the things they are going to talk about today ( I heard this on local KUSI 9 News) is a letter received by the judge from someone who has been in the courtroom regarding Juror #1 and possible improprieties observed by the letter writer. The news reporter did not state what those improrieties were, only that the judge wa oging to give a copy of the letter to each lawyer and they would decide if there was merit to it.

[juzcuz]

My point is that--

While, I'm not an expert and I'm new too--I'm just trying to think through this--
It seems that even heavy dew (accord. to Tomsovic) would provide moisture to areas of the victim's body (enough to alter a crime scene). Also, there are lbs. of water that the human body already contains within cells even though they are in a state of drying.

Nevertheless, if it rained in that area on the 17th and if her body was out there with broken areas of the skin, then it could have collected a fresh supply of moisture for the larva.

[cyncooper]

...to swirl in your head...

Really, dear, your way of speaking is not conducive to any meaningful dialogue. You smirk your way through the thread all you want. It is clear you aren't a bit interested in thoughts in my head so I decline to share.