Posted on 08/13/2002 10:12:33 PM PDT by FresnoDA
sw
Overreaching generalization, this serves to impeach your whole point.
Mr. Dusek has a theory about what that means, you know.
sw
It is not accurate to state that a juror is operating under a "presumption of guilt" after the prosecution has made its case. And a defendents decision to not testify and refute damaging testimony is something that most jurors will consider. (right or wrong) But it has nothing to do with presumption of guilt. It has to do with a damaging case being made, and a defendent's lack of ability to refute the charges.
You all have been doing a great job following & posting details of this trial!!!!
Superb sleuths :)
The single hair found which is consistent with Danielle was in the sink trap, and matched 12 out of 13 DNA markers tested. (Note: It takes a match of 25 markers to indicate a match of a maternal relative. Why did they only test 13 of those 25? They got 12 positives and stopped testing after the first negative marker? Why did the hair only match 12 out of the 13 tested, and possibly only 12 out of 25 DNA markers? How long had it been there? Why was it degraded to the point where they couldn't read more markers? Wouldn't someone's hair PERFECTLY match in every way their DNA profile?)
Other hairs could not exclude Danielle, but could be Brenda's or the boys'. Lots of color-treated blonde hairs were found, including on and under the bed's mattress, but none of Danielle's. They weren't tested to see whose they were. No hairs of Danielle's on the headboard, where Dusek said she banged her head repeatedly during the hypothetical rape scene. None of Danielle's DNA on that bed where Dusek said she met her demise. No blood spatters on the walls, no blood or Danielle's DNA on the comforter or sheets (but other hairs were there, not Danielle's).
Hairs that might have been Layla's were there, lots and lots of them. You know what that might indicate? That Layla dashed in the MH when it was open and on the street (or at the park) and Danielle followed her to get her out. Put her left hand on the side of the cabinet to look out the window or to steady herself while trying to drag out the overactive and stubborn dog (leaving one print in the entire MH), then left, Layla in tow. Plausible explanation, certainly.
The blood? Well, first of all, that tiny droplet was never tested to see if it was blood--it was just presumed to be so. (Yes, they do have tests to tell whether or not it is blood, human blood, or something else. They just didn't do them.) Secondly, kayti, I think, said that since Danielle was known to have frequent nosebleeds (as per Brenda's testimony), perhaps she dropped a bit of blood on the sidewalk on her way from the park back home. David Westerfield, loading motorhome parked at the curb, steps in that spot of blood from Danielle's nosebleed there on the sidewalk, and carries it to the carpet on the bottom of his shoe. Plausible explanation, certainly.
If there are two reasonable, plausible explanations to explain a piece of evidence, one pointing towards guilt and one pointing towards innocence, even if the "guilt" explanation is more intriguing or more plausible, the law says the jury has to, MUST, accept the plausible explanation pointing towards innocence.
Reasonable doubt.
Plausable? How long would the blood be "wet" enough for someone to step in it and then track it into the motor home? How many steps were required between the point he stepped in it and it reached the carpet? You're asking the jury to invent a defense.
The blame was put on an aging black pastor who had visited the company where the little girl was playing in the parking lot.
They found a drop of blood on his car/truck, and decided it must be him.
Later, they found out the blood was 'fish blood'.....not human blood.
The real culprit was later found.
There is no "prize," but the winner(s) get to be called "winners" and have the right to say "I told you so;" we're still negotiating about "neener neener neeners."
(Note: All times PDT; if this thread gets real long, you might want to send your choices via freepmail or post them on the Refugee site--often I quit reading them when they're very, very long. Additionally, I will be out of town most of the day today, and might miss your pings. Freepmail or Refugee site is best!)
Just an independent opinion, but I'd re-register under another aka if I were you. (Glad I'm not you!)
But hey, let's get to the real meat of the trial. Westerfield may indeed be guilty. I don't know the truth and neither do you. But I do know this:
1. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Danielle van Dam was abducted.
2. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Danielle van Dam was murdered. She died alright, but the prosecution has failed to state exactly how she died, if she died as a result of a homicide, manslaughter, or an accidental death.
3. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DW was ever in the van Dam residence.
4. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DW was ever on their contingent property at any time. Of course there is always the possibility that DW was delivering the "mail" while Damon was at work, but we don't know that for a fact.
5. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DW abducted Danielle van Dam.
6. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DW murdered Danielle van Dam.
7. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DW dumped the body of Danielle van Dam after having supposedly killed her.
Now you and the executioner Greg Weston can slap each other on the back until you're silly but you can't rebut anything I just said. If you want to convict him on circumstanstial evidence, be my guest. But the burden on the prosecution was to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and they failed to do so.
Any verdict of guilty, in my opinion, will be the result of a generalized hysteria sweeping this country involving child abductions and child pornography. That is not to say that we as parents shouldn't be concerned about the welfare of our progeny, but when someone's life is on the line, we should exercise our best judgment and and make every effort to force the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.