Replies

Best Evidence, The Murder of Danielle

I have watched as much of the trial as possible on CourtTV, and the Internet. I have reread major portions of the transcriptions and discussed the case for many hours on this forum. I see tons of tealeaf reading type evidence: hoses, lights, curtains, dancing, sex play, porno, and fibers that may or may not have a common source. I see only two areas of good quality, scientific evidence worthy of serious consideration.

First is the motorhome evidence. DNA from Danielle is in the MH and on Westerfield’s jacket which may have been in the motorhome. The DNA evidence is backed by a fingerprint, and hair. Most people are aware that I believe no conclusive test for blood was ever run, but it doesn’t matter on an objective level, only an emotional one. Since Danielle’s DNA is in there, I can think of only three ways it could be.

1. DW grabbed Danielle and killed her in or out of the motorhome, leaving blood or drool DNA, the fingerprint and hair.
2. Danielle got into the motorhome on her own and played in there, leaving the same evidence.
3. The motorhome was “flaked” by LE to build a case ie. DW was framed.

Second is the bug evidence found on the body that says the body was placed there no earlier than Feb 12th. An expert paid for by the prosecution and one paid for by the defense have both testified to the scientific validity of their conclusions, and they are in very good agreement (as I write this of course there is a third expert waiting in the wings, who is unlikely to outweigh the other two, and probably won’t even disagree much). I see only three reasonable explanations for the Feb 12th earliest dump date.

1. Danielle was alive until at least Feb 12th.
2. Danielle’s body was refrigerated until Feb 12th.
3. Danielle’s body was tightly sealed against bugs until Feb 12th, and then unsealed.

All three require the action of a human being to make the body available to bugs on the 12th.

Lots of theories about this case exist, but there are really only three possibilities.

1. Westerfield did it alone.
2. Westerfield did with an accomplice
3. Somebody else did it.

Now we need to test these three theories against the two major hunks of good scientific evidence.

1. Westerfield did it alone. Doesn’t fit, he was under constant police surveillance and could not have dropped off the body.
2. Westerfield did it with accomplice. Does fit. Explains both the motorhome evidence and bug evidence.
3. Somebody else did it. Does fit, but only if you use the second or third explanation for the DNA.

The prosecution theory as expressed in the opening statements is clearly theory 1. Unless the judge allows the prosecution to reopen the testimony to try to prove theory 2, then DW walks. Would it be double jeopardy to switch now? I don’t know the law well enough to say.

By this analysis it sure looks like DW will be judged not guilty, with many people believing that theory two was the only logical approach for the prosecution to take, and they blew it.