My son is a commercial fisherman. I think people would be very surprised what can be done with a fishing knife, particularly if used post-mortem. IMO the garbage dump was preplanned by FD, so he thought all that evidence was going to be destroyed. I have previously posted about 2 cases in Florida where LE knows for a fact the bodies went to the dump, but have not been able to locate them. This fact has not stopped the prosecution because it has the forensic horsemen of the apocalypse and videos that point to guilt.
Warning:This post is about to get graphic! In one case, a woman murdered her co-worker and the State has much the same case as will probably be presented here-lots and lots of forensics, but no confession or eyewitness testimony. A very, very significant piece of evidence, however, is a video of the accused purchasing an ordinary, small, electric carving knife. Suffice it to say, it is believed that was her choice of tool for dismemberment. A small, innocuous looking carving knife. The DNA evidence is small in amount but gigantic in importance, including DNA and discarded evidence seized from a dumpster (sound familiar?).
It seems pretty clear that FD was wearing gloves during this murder. We previously discussed the fact that post-arrest FD made a big showing of wearing gloves while working on his property. I believe he intentionally donned those gloves in case someone remembers they saw him wearing gloves that day (perhaps while making purchases at a hardware store). He was planting the seed that he always wears gloves, so wearing them on the day of the murder was "no big deal." When my son is butchering large (and I mean large!) game fish, he wears easily purchased gloves that prevent nicks to his hand. FD did the same.
At least in the fishing community, the most commonly knife used is a filet knife, and those things are small but razor sharp. With the right knife and sufficient skill, it would not be difficult to dismember a human. FD was only trying to get the body to a manageable size in order to dispose of it, after all. If he had been planning this murder, as I believe he had, he probably knew exactly how to use that knife.
What could make this evidence even more significant? If the witness gave LE the bloody jeans mentioned in his statement. I believe he did. If those jeans have JD's DNA on them, they corroborate this witness' testimony quite well. This evidence is what we call "gut bucket" evidence because, once presented, the jury KNOWS the witness is telling the truth.
Yes, I am aware he is a drug addict, but I do not think that will matter to the jury at all. Drug addiction is a sad fact of life in this country. Juries have to determine the weight to be given an addict's testimony all the time. What is important when using such testimony is to corroborate that evidence at every opportunity, to use objective evidence to show that the witness is telling the truth.
What LE is now doing is precisely that. Is what he is saying consistent with other evidence in its possession? Can LE show a chain of events that puts both the witness and the defendant in that place at that time such that a reasonable person would conclude FD put the knife in the garbage during the dump? Let's not forget the video evidence, which is what led LE to this witness in the first place.
This is not a chain of custody question. IMO the State is not obliged to prove that no other human on earth could have put the knife in that garbage can. That is imposing a burden on the State which does not exist. Instead, it should be sufficient to show, via video, FD putting something in the can and the witness taking something out. The weight to be given this testimony will be up to the jury, but I see no reason why the testimony itself is not admissible. Again, though, that testimony pales in comparison to admitting those bloody jeans! I so hope LE was able to locate them!
IMO their will be many evidentiary questions in this case. There always are in murder prosecutions. I notice NP has been very quiet the last few days. Maybe he is starting to understand he will not win this case by public pronouncement, and is instead focusing his attention on more substantive matters.
