Posted on 08/21/2002 10:03:52 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
I just heard this at noon.
Got that right. Very strange stuff how they could support someone that was so obviously guilty.
True, but judges are actually reluctant to do the readbacks, as well. It is the minimum they can do, and it's all they do.
When I was on a jury, the judge told us that if we had questions or wanted readbacks, he had to bring in both attorneys and the defendent from wherever they were at the time, and he obviously didn't want to to that unless we REALLY wanted something. For the answer to one of our questions, he just sent us a note that said, "Read your written instructions from me, again." And he was quite a nice judge, too.
Yeah an "exact science" that all the "experts" who practice it disagree on it seems.
They didn't show the alleged kiddie porn to the media, but my recollection is that the questionable stuff amounted to less than 1% of an extensive collection of run of the mill T&A porn. Also, there is some question whether all of it was the defendant's, given his teen aged son had access to the machine and was actually using it while his dad was downtown being grilled by the police.
As an entomologist who has studied forensic entomology, and my understanding of the entomological data, it seems almost 100% to me that the girl was put whre she was found while DW was under constant surveillance.
Obviously, this jury doesn't hold entomology in very high regard.
BTW, what was the nature of the DNA found in his motorhome? Hair? Skin? Blood?
I'm no expert, but my recollection is that the strongest piece of evidence was a spot on Westerfield's jacket that matched Danielle's DNA, but was not verified to be blood (not sure how that's possible). Also troubling were also some strands of hair and a couple of fingerprints that were in the motor home. It seemed to me that, if he had done the crime in the motor home or used it to transport the body, there should have been a lot more of such evidence. Also, there are possible alternative explanations, such as the kid trespassing some time in the fall of last year, or even the real perp (or Ott and Keyser — San Diego's finest, don't you know) doing a frame up.
So, I don't think it was proven that Westerfield did it. Nor was it proven that he didn't. But I'd sure love to know who did, how, and why!
Really? I've been following these threads and court tv for months. Where have you been? I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your bigoted reply with a response, dimwit.
Oh, no! Lots of reaons. Corrupt cops. Swinging neighbors. Media lynch mobs. I'm just not sure Feldman is the man for the job however. I think DW may need new counsel. Dont' give up hope. Loose lips will tell the tale.
Yeah an "exact science" that all the "experts" who practice it disagree on it seems.
It would SEEM like that, when lawyers get involved. Remember in the OJ case, when the defense brought in that high-paid crackpot to cast doubt on DNA evidence. He may as well have been wearing a hat with a propellor on it.
In the case being discussed, the third entomologist (the one paid by the prosecution) never disagreed with the work or science of his colleagues. He simply stated that an obscure, freak condition might have occured that would make a one-and-a-million error in the calculations of the previous two entomologists. Even then, he could only stretch the date back to the very edge of doubt.
I'm telling you, the entomological evidence is hard to get around, and in my opinion the prosecution's entomologist did not do a good job at getting around it. I don't know his motives, of course, but I suspect that his conscience ought ot bother him for trying to haze the truth for money, when lives are at stake.
I concede that there is some serious evidence against Westerfield, and I'm not necessarily saying he's innocent. It's probably just as well for society that he is no longer a free man. But the timing of the dumping of the body is a big problem I can't get around. There is some other reasonable doubt in my own mind, but that one is the biggie for me.
I had the impression that the nastiest porn item was a Japanese cartoon (anime?) depicting the rape of a young girl. I could see where he might have kept that just because of its unusualness, its bizarre reflection of a foreign culture's underside.
BTW, in order to even discuss this, you have to block out from your mind that this was an innocent young child that was hurt and murdered. There is nothing more infuriating in the world if you let yourself think about it too much. It seems weird that our whole country is discussing Calliphorid larvae and lawyers and locks and motorhomes, when that is what is at the bottom of it all. Abortion is the same way. We talk about laws and restrictions and rallies, and can scarcely allow ourselves to think about what it's all about.
I believe I already know the answer to that. Having met hundreds of Mac users over the years, I've only known of one Mac owner who was gay - and he was in the process of getting a PC. I'd bet that the percentage of gay Windows users is higher than the general population (except in Hollywood perhaps).
But every child molester I've read about was a Windows user.
Here a link to the transcript of the expert testimony about Westerfield's computer - excerpted below -
Q: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BEDROOM COMPUTER. DO YOU RECALL THAT PARTICULAR COMPUTER?A: YES, SIR.
Q: WHAT BRAND WAS IT?
A: THAT WAS A GATEWAY COMPUTER.
[snip]
Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE WHO WAS THE REGISTERED USER OF THAT BEDROOM COMPUTER?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: WHO?
A: DAVID A. WESTERFIELD.
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.