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

Court TV ^ | August 1, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[John Jamieson]

That's why the rest had to be sealed, or have a misstrial, which the judge didn't want. I think many deals have been cut, with the judge's approval.

[Jrabbit]

Dusek couldn't have done worse with bug and mummy experts, that's for sure. And I do think the jury "gets" it. Now, before I sign off for the evening I have one more question for you. Is it EVER going to rain again in our part of the world???

[John Jamieson]

Westerfield would probably come out OK, but Feldman must feel the risk is higher than the reward, if he's got the bugguys all in line, and he does.

[John Jamieson]

The lake's full and the grass is green. I'm enjoying this mild summer so far!

Ever eat at the Cotton Gin, great food!

[fatima]

Thanks for info butt.

[Jrabbit]

The Cotton Gin is great! Just a hop away for us rabbits!

[John Jamieson]

Time to fade away. Good nite all.

[fatima]

I agree.

[JudyB1938]

I don't know if you have these links or not, but here they are.

http://users3.ev1.net/~2ntense/ (Stealth Ninja Dave)

http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/

http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/docs/police01.html (police interview)

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/

http://www.kfmb.com/misc/westerfield/westerfield.php

http://www.760kfmb.com/personalities/rick_roberts/index.php

http://www.websleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID4&archive=

http://64.224.241.41/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=van_Dam

[connectthedots]

I kind of wish Westerfield would testify. I think I'd want to but the prevailing opinion is that defendants shouldn't. It just seems if I was innocent I'd want to tell everyone. Probably get myself convicted for sure!

This case is an object lesson for any innocent person the police want to question. If you didn't do it, simply tell the cops that since you don't know anything about the crime and didn't do it, there is no reason for the cops to question them and tell them to leave your property until that have either a search warrant or a warrant for your arrest. Had DW simply declined to talk to the cops, he would have never been charged.

[connectthedots]

John, it has been said that the bugman testimony is too complicated for the jury to understand and will be ignored (paraphased). What do you think?

There is nothing complicated about "the body could not have been deposited before Feb 13"; more than a week after DW was being followed constantly.

[Greg Weston]

Please list for me all these crucial to the case "lies" you are talking about.

[Bluebird Singing]

Jumping in to catch up on trial. Feldman brought in the photos showing LE wearing orange. Also mentioned Brenda's orange sweater that she had worn to the courtroom. Dusek then has orange fibers from LE analyzed, correct? What about Brenda's sweater? Did Dusek have that analyzed also? With all the talk of orange, why would Brenda wear an orange sweater into the courtroom? It's an eyecatching color.

[Greg Weston]

So Lamont, If you snatch some kid off a street corner seen by no on, take him or her to your house kill him/her and then dump the body somewhere and are later arrested because blood and the kids fingerprints are found in your vehicle and home are you saying you should automatically be let go scot free because there was no evidence of you at the street corner? Is that what you are saying should happen??

>>>As for the child porn, has it actually been proven that the photos were of underage children?<<

If they were not or some kind of borderline stuff they would have never tried to blame the stuff on Neal. Some of it has been described as kids around the same age as Danielle.

[Greg Weston]

>>>There is nothing complicated about "the body could not have been deposited before Feb 13"; more than a week after DW was being followed constantly.<<<

Too bad you are not dealing with some exact science. Battle of the paid off "experts" that's all. They all cancel each other out. And if Danielles body was covered for a period of time the "results" could be "skewed" remember that?

The defense can't counter the Blood, DNA, fingerprints etc, in any credible way. That's why Westerfield will be convicted. Nothing complicated about it.

[shezza]

Well, hello, Greg. I can set my watch by your appearances on these threads. How are you this morning?

[John Jamieson]

That's just about the silliest thing you ever posted.

THEY AGREED!

[bvw]

Ooops. "Brenda" .... Barbara -- who knows? Could be.

[hoosiermama]

John, is it possible that Barb is also a felon and cannot testify?

[Lamont Cranston]

So Lamont, If you snatch some kid off a street corner seen by no on, take him or her to your house kill him/her and then dump the body somewhere and are later arrested because blood and the kids fingerprints are found in your vehicle and home are you saying you should automatically be let go scot free because there was no evidence of you at the street corner? Is that what you are saying should happen??

No strawman arguments, please. The nature of the case you bring up is quite different. In the VD case, the girl was an unsupervised neighbor who could have conceivably been in the mobile home either with or without the knowledge of Westerfield.

Also, the site of the kidnapping was very different sort of crime scene than a "street corner", which anyone has access to. Anyone who has studied the fundamentals of criminology knows that all crime scenes are not the same. In the VD case, the defendant would have had to enter a house filled with people and a dog, and abducted a child--all the while not being beeing seen or making noise (which the child or dog could have easily done as well.