The author has spent years studying this case, debating it with others, and researching the issues involved. As would be expected of someone with a science degree, he has devoted particular attention to the scientific evidence, especially the entomology (the bugs), which involved numerous calculations. The trial jury reportedly took a methodical approach during their deliberations. The author shows what a truly methodical approach really is. He documents flaws in the media coverage, flaws in the case presented by the defense, flaws in the prosecution case, and flaws in the police investigation. In particular, he is disturbed by the close relationship claimed by prosecutor Clarke between the District Attorney's office and the Police Department's Crime Laboratory. Scientists must be neutral, they must establish the truth. People can learn from these mistakes, and so avoid them in future. The author has a strong sense of justice, and is suspicious of angry communities. Forensic pathologist Dr Michael Baden said that, when the passions of the community and the prosecutor are raised, one can get a false verdict, and he quoted a case (Jeanine Nicarico, Chicago, 1983) very similar to Danielle's, in which that had happened and innocents were convicted (Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez). Did that also happen to David Westerfield?
 |
Ask a Question About this Product More... |
|
