Posted on 06/19/2002 8:45:03 PM PDT by NatureGirl
-Could the fingerprint on the handrail be hers ?
YOUR RESPONSE:
No-- she was excluded-- all the "pizza guys" were-- in fact, they left no fingerprints, after pizza time. Go figure.
Do you see why it looks like you included her in the 'pizza guys' category? What I want you to answer is why do you say 'SHE WAS EXCLUDED'? Did they say that in court? No one else heard testimony stating Diane Halfman (seperate from the pizza guys) was excluded, that I know of.
I didn't get to hear the testimony, so that is why I am asking you.
Not yet. I remember a photo and press release talking about him and a buddy driving around the desert handing out flyers. This statement you are referring to implies they were searching also, which they were told not to do.
worked in OJ case--will not work a 2nd time
I think I added to the confusion as well. Sorry about that.
Apples and oranges.
There may be good reason for a few LE to protect the van Dams and therefore need to point to someone else and then make it fit.
Scroll up a little and read about the friendship of retired SDPD, Diane Halfman, A FRIEND OF BRENDA AND DAMON'S. Darn those coincidences, huh? They're everywhere.
I see nothing sinister about this. It is a big case. Large volume of evidence. Large number of staffers involved.
In my non-LE enforcement professional career, a boss would kick-off an event of similar magnitude, because of the importance. Get things right. Follow procedures, and establish new ones where necessary.
My take on the testimony of the LE and forensic people: They came across as well prepared professionals.
For posters constantly figuring that LE went straight to DW: Why did they wait nearly three weeks to arrest him, if they rushed to judgement?
How do I come to this position? It is called probability. It seems entirely possible that one or a few of the pieces of evidence could point to DW, by coincidence. It is statistically highly improbable that so many would point to him.
I am not as confident that the jury will see it this way. The evidence against OJ was stronger than against DW; a stupid jury had what was for them "reasonable doubt."
"Reasonable" is not the same as "none whatsoever."
Tell kim I have not seen any evidence yet..are we watching a different trial..the only thing is the blood..What is "word wrap"?
The website KFMB might give the info.
15 Q. DID YOU COMPARE, SIR, ANY OF THE UNKNOWN LATENTS16 THAT YOU FOUND IN THE MOTOR HOME AGAINST ANY OF THE UNIDENTIFIED17 LATENTS YOU FOUND IN THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE?18 A. NO, I DIDN'T.
Im on the fence, but what about the blood evidence. starting to tilt toward maybe guilty
It sure is a thought. He has a few cards up his sleeve and I think we all just patiently wait to see what they are.
He did not come unprepared and he did not seek a speedy trial to be beaten.
I am anxiously awaiting the defense.
Why are they talking about all the "evidence" that is not related to this crime (that is not the chids hair etc)
2 INTERIOR BEDROOM DOOR BELOW KNOB VICTIM'S BEDROOM, AND A SECOND3 TIME ON A CARD DOCUMENTED THE RIGHT FRONT CORNER OF THE DESK TOP4 NEXT TO THE BED VICTIM'S ROOM.
DVD's in Danielle's room..mentions this but no details follow on bedroom....only the doors and bannister where DVD's were found:
5 Q. DID YOU ALSO IDENTIFY HER FATHER IN HER BEDROOM?6 A. NOT ON EXHIBIT ONE BUT PROBABLY ON OTHER EXHIBITS.
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.