Prosecution's Bug Expert Struggles On Stand:08/01/2002 Westefield Trial Nears Finish Lap!

Court TV ^ | August 1, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[VRWC_minion]

All of the bugsperts have concluded that DW could not have dumped the body

I heard that they all conclude she was there at least since 2/12.

[fatima]

Judy,Thank you so much,there is so much info on these links,fatima

[John Jamieson]

Felons testify all the time, the judge gives special instructions to the jury to evaluate their testimony.

[John Jamieson]

Thats not what they said, but if it was, how would DW have dumped the body?

[VRWC_minion]

Where did the drag mark come from?

I don't know.

[VRWC_minion]

FWIW, I don't see the porn as proof of anything.

[VRWC_minion]

. I BELIEVE IT WAS -- IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SMALLER THAN THAT. Q. SO IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BODY PART OR A PART OF THE FLESH FROM THE BODY? A. THAT WAS MY GUESS AT THE TIME, YES. Q. AND DID THE CADAVER DOGS REACT TO THAT TRAIL? A. I DID NOT SEE THEM REACT TO IT. I DID NOT NOTICE IT.

If the dogs didn't hit ? Amazing.

[John Jamieson]

If you take the ranges of all 4 bug experts and choose the earliest and latest, you get 2/9 to 2/23, DW was under surveillance after midnight plus a few minutes on the 5th. He could not have acted alone, which is what he is charged with.

[connectthedots]

I heard that they all conclude she was there at least since 2/12.

You misunderstand. All of the bug experts said the body was exposed to insects on 2/12 or some LATER date. IOW, the body WAS NOT exposed to insects before 2/12.

[fatima]

Really,how come?

[bvw]

Some inferential support for your theory of mud. The phrase "his name is mud" was in use well before 1850.

John Wilkes Booth broke his leg while escaping after shooting Abraham Lincoln. He was given medical help by Dr Samuel Mudd, who didn't then know about the assassination. Mudd was wrongly convicted of being Booth's conspirator. Actually the phrase was in wide circulation before Mudd was defamed. Mudd was born in 1830: this comes from an 1823 slang dictionary, "'And his name is mud!' Ejaculated upon the conclusion of a silly oration, or of a leader in the Courier." The phrase appears to be one of the many that, when a news story arises, match the jist of the story and later become associated with it.

(Source)

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

All of the bug experts said the body was exposed to insects on 2/12 or some LATER date. IOW, the body WAS NOT exposed to insects before 2/12.

What really bugs me (ha-ha) about this is that entomology experts are primarily prosecution witnesses. So......it stands to reason that they want jurors to believe that it is a reliable science.

Yet in this case, prosecutors want to do a 180 degree shift even after 3.99 out of 4 forensic entomologists say nothing indicates the body could have been there as early as the first few days of February.

If the State assumes the truth of the science in convicting its citizens, it is very wrong to now disregard what the same "truth" tells them.

It is either good science or it isn't. If it is not, it should never be used by a prosecutor again, IMO.

Above all, it is extremely significant that Dusek brought Faulkner into the case to calculate and testify to PMI. If Faulkner had given him the dates he wanted, Dusek would have held him up as an impeccable expert. It is, in essence, a blatant misrepresentation or lie to now paint Faulkner, et al, as unreliable.

[bvw]

Mudd was wrongly convicted of being Booth's conspirator.

[connectthedots]

If the State assumes the truth of the science in convicting its citizens, it is very wrong to now disregard what the same "truth" tells them.

A point Feldman will hammer home to the jury during closing arguments. I am confident tha Feldman will tell the jury exactly how many times Faulkner has testified in other murder trials and helped win convictions.

[VRWC_minion]

Thats not what they said, but if it was, how would DW have dumped the body?

I have posted my scenario previously.

I have concluded that the bug science has some problems in that they can predict the minimum time the body was there but because there are so many variables that cannot be known or controlled for.

I believe the bug guys have a flaw in their science in this respect and that the jury will be told this, if they haven't already figured it out on their own.

What was missed by many here is that Dusek isn't attacking the scientist, he is attacking the science.

[VRWC_minion]

For a clear thinker your conclusions do not follow your premises.

[VRWC_minion]

If the State assumes the truth of the science in convicting its citizens, it is very wrong to now disregard what the same "truth" tells them.

Dusek made a distinction between the ability of the science to establish minimum times as opposed to actual times. I beleive that wil be the crux of his closing argument.

[John Jamieson]

He sure hasn't found anyone to help him. I must have missed the testimony about that.

How come Dusek has used the same guys to convict over a 100 other people. Should we let them out?

[John Jamieson]

I'm willing to listen, please point out the flaw in my fawlty logic.

[John Jamieson]

Just what are Dusek's qulifications for attacking this science? I thought he was a lawyer.