TALE OF TWO LAWERS (Feldmand vs. Dusek) DEFEATED and DECIETFUL.(VD's SKATE FREE TO SWING AGAIN)

Yahoo ^ | August 22, 2002 | Yahoo

[FresnoDA]

TALE OF TWO LAWYERS......

DEFEATED and DECIETFUL

[Freedom2specul8]

I guess his niece was in on it too..

[Freedom2specul8]

Through scientific conclusions, the medical examiner ruled out certain causes of death. He did NOT rule that her cause of death was natural.

[dread78645]

Your foil's on too tight.

Sorry, It's been known to happen ...

Why did the SDPD use polaroid photos of of evidence only after the evidence was tested ?

The SDPD policy is a 35mm photo and a negative before and after testing.

For the Westerfield case, SDPD used a polaroid print, no negative --poor enlargement.

And particularly when they (SDPD & DA) knew the evidence would be challenged, they used piss-poor techniques . Why do you think this policy was changed ?

Please do me a favor and post pics of the "bloodstain" on Westerfields jacket.
Ditto pics of the 1/4" spot from the MH carpet.

[Freedom2specul8]

"Please do me a favor and post pics of the "bloodstain" on Westerfields jacket.
Ditto pics of the 1/4" spot from the MH carpet.
"

The jury saw the actual cutots of the spots on the jacket. I'm pretty sure they were in a baggie... ?? Or do you know different.

[dread78645]

He did NOT rule that her cause of death was natural.

And I agree with you on that.

Natural or un-natural (my bet is the latter), I don't see how Westerfield could have kidnapped and killed this girl.

[dread78645]

The jury saw the actual cutots of the spots on the jacket. I'm pretty sure they were in a baggie... ?? Or do you know different.

Thanks. I'll show you "actual cutots" of your pantyhose.
point ?

[Freedom2specul8]

The point is that it doesn't matter if we were unable to see it. It is important for the jury to see it. SEE? :)

[dread78645]

The point is that it doesn't matter if we were unable to see it. It is important for the jury to see it. SEE? :)<

Understand. The jury saw things we didn't (child-porn) and things we did (DNA analysis + hemostix false positives)

The jury gets the labor of the trial.

From what I know --and heard --and read --FReepers would still be watching a hung jury !

[pinz-n-needlez]

Does it matter when, or how the blood got there, or how much is there?

Does it matter if the forensics people never did the definitive test to see if it was really blood or if it was 'bare' dna?

Does it matter that the jacket was handled by a LEO, who has a record of falsifying evidence, before the forensic techs received it?

I never said I defended OJ. But you can jump to any conclusion you wish, it's a free country, sort of.

[pinz-n-needlez]

I used the phrase, 'got dead,' because the medical examiner couldn't tell us how or when she died.

Dusek said because she was dead and DW was on trial, we had to believe he did it. Sorry, I don't believe he did. No evidence was presented to show that he ever had contact with her that weekend.

When I saw the people who have testified on his behalf, I am more convinced he didn't do it. I can't envision a time when he would say that he did kill her, so your scenario has no credibility for me.

If you believe he did it, then continue to say that. When some DA needs to be elected in your town and you happen to be his scapegoat, I probably won't believe that you did it either.

Call me an idealist, I'm cuter that way. :-)

[Luis Gonzalez]

It matters that Westerfield had his day in Court, and that the people who WERE THERE, who saw all the testimony, listened to all the witnesses, and watched DW's reaction throughout the trial found hiim guilty of murder, and of possesion of kiddie porn.

You can get down to the atomic substructure of the jacket's fabric if you wish, but you can't erase the fact that there was more than enough evidence to convict DW of the crimes. And he was.

Now, he's going to go join all the other "innocent" men in jail.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Don't you understand?

A linked image posted on an internet bulleting board, of a low-definition image from an online online news agency revealed more to FReepers than to the people actually looking at the real thing up-close and personal.

[pinz-n-needlez]

I don't argue the fact that the jury decided at the end of their deliberations that they agreed unanimously to find him guilty.

I just don't think he had a single thing to do with her disappearance or death. Nothing I saw in the testimony or read in the transcripts even suggests to me that he had any contact with her that weekend in February.

Sorry, I know I'm hopeless as a debater. I will continue to tell people what I saw, what I believe about this case. They may think my points are valid, they may not. It doesn't change that fact that DW will probably be sitting on death row by the weekend. (Actually, I hope they decide to give him the death penalty, he'll be safer there during appeals.)

He may someday be put to death by the state for Danielle's death. But I don't think he had anything to do with it. I would welcome him to dinner in my home today.

Feel free to ignore me, there are other people who would love to argue with you.

[dread78645]

Stay outta West Cocoa Beach, Luis.
You can't handle it.

[Freedom2specul8]

"agency revealed more to FReepers than to the people actually looking at the real thing up-close and personal"

Yes I understand Luis. I do have faith in the jurors of this trial. I have to.

As a person who used/uses both news reports and transcripts (provided by news agencies) in this case, I completely understand the need to see more, feel more and know more about this case. Unfortunately we are stuck with what we could/can get. The jury got to see the evidence first hand..that counts more IMHO.

[Freedom2specul8]

"Sorry, I know I'm hopeless as a debater"

Isn't it totally puzzling to see 2 people see the same thing and draw completely different conclusions? I have appreciated your posts....for numerous reasons. You are one of the most respectful on the threads. You are a genteel debater..

[pinz-n-needlez]

The major reason I'm a hopeless debater is that I don't see this as an amusing parlor game. A man is probably going to be sent to his death. For a crime I don't think he did.

What you describe as genteel, is actually my sitting here in drop-jawed horror at people who seem otherwise intelligent, but are following Dusek's admonition to follow the crowd, and ignore that he never presented a piece of evidence that shows DW had contact with her the weekend of her death.

If a mistake is made here, theoretically speaking, I'd much rather err on the side of a guilty man going free. The depravity of the state killing an innocent man is more than I can bear.

My abusing you isn't going to change your mind, so I try not to ridicule and call names. I do try to support those who state the truth in ways I can't. I tend to ignore those who truly cannot or will not see.

[Ditter]

Sigh.......... Idealists are not cute, they are airheads. They believe the world is the want they *want* it to be, not the way it is.

DW was a strange loner with few friends. He drank too much & became violent. He couldn't stay married or keep a normal relationship with women going. He was a Dad's swinger wanna be. He collected porn *including* child porn. He is not the kind of person who would be welcome in my home around my grandchildren.

[Ditter]

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Didn't DW drop the jacket at the dry cleaners himself as soon as he got back from his trip? How did the police get it to put the stain on it before it was cleaned? Also where did the police get Danielle's blood/dna to plant in the MH?

This is an awfully risky way to win an election. If it backfires then you go to jail instead of back into office.

[bvw]

You, Luigi, went out of your way to misinterpret what I said so you could suggest I may be a liar. Well, take heart, paisan, I ain't and will not be. So go unwind the fetters your fingers are twisted in for such a misbegotten post.