Replies

Actually, I don't.

Posted this to another thread yesterday:

All right, the jury has spoken and that is that.

However I must admit that something is nagging me, specifically; the bug evidence.

Forensic Emtymology had risen to the levels of an apparently reliable science. Dusek himself has put people in prison base on bug evidence alone. The bug evidence in this trial seems to set the profession back significantly. Either that or the prosecution is missing something.

The only options seem to be:

1) The Forensic Emtymologists are wrong, and have to rethink their approach and are about to learn something new. This could have far ranging consequences for the use of bug evidence in court if the bug guys never figure out why their numbers don't jive with what appears to have actually happened.

2) The Forensic Emtymologists are right and DW has been wrongly convicted. This was a plausible scenario a month ago but now looks mighty weak.

3) The Forensic Emtymologists are right and someone else was involved. This is just plain disturbing.

Has anyone found out if the entymologists have been able to figure out what's apparently throwing them off? Maybe they're about to learn a new twist in their discipline.

"3) The Forensic Emtymologists are right and someone else was involved. This is just plain disturbing."

Yes, it's disturbing, but very possible in light of the known international child porno ring with member Brooke L. Rowland right in Poway. He was arrested 2/15, just after Danielle's body was dumped according to the bug guys.

We ought to find ALL the perps, it's entirely possible DW was a minor player. I know you're going to ask why he's not telling all? I don't have a good answer.

One of the problems is they don't have a lot of children's bodies on the "farm". Parent's don't generally donate deceased children to forensic research. In fact, they have a hard time getting adult bodies.

So they use pigs, which are a pretty good tissue match in many ways, except one. Their mass is heavily concentrated, unlike humns who are relativily enlongated.

I doubt seriously if the rate of cooling and decomposition and or mummification in a 50 pound piggie is the same as a 50 pound child. I would also guess that the difference in fat/muscle ratio throws things off a bit too. Just have this feeling that pigs and children have vastly different mummification rates.

And then there is the matter of pig scat, the most redolent scat of all, so flavorful and attractive to insects. Have these scientists been putting out clean, washed pigs, or barn fresh pigs that come with their own fly supply, including maggots stuck in the scat stuck on their hooves?

Forensic Entomology is not a complete science, I doubt there is any "complete" science.

The fact is, they have plenty of room for error, because they are still working on a lot of presumptive info rather than actual facts.

They don't have the exact temps for the exact area because none are available. They have no factual knowledge of what may or may not have been removed or disturbed by predator activiity.

And not one testified that they could conclusively exclude DW as the dumper base on their science. This is why it was unpersuasive to the jury, IMO.