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

[MizSterious]

Oh, you were there? You saw it? Why on earth didn't you report it to the authorities? Or did you prefer to watch?

[demsux]

You obviously haven't been a member of FR too long, have ya?

Nope, just stumbled in here this morning. However, your statement about "consenting adults" in the privacy of their "bedroom" really smacks of clintonista defenders...you sound like nancy grace, peter jennings, etal.

Personally, I believe in monogamy.

[spectre]

Yeah, I'm a newbie...4 years.

You're acting like a Clintonista...same morals, same standards. Hardly conservative, Hildy. People do change..don't they?

I've had enough of rolling in the mudd with you this morning. It's been real...see ya.

sw

[MizSterious]

And James Carville and Al Gore...and, for that matter, Monica Lewinsky, I guess.

[Hildy]

I believe in monogomy also. But the VD's, being of age, believed something else. And it is their right to do so.

[MizSterious]

By the way, anyone still have any of those old kneepad award graphics we used to use on other liberals? LOL!

[Hildy]

Guen...Sticks and stones...I don't even see it as namecalling. This is an emotionally charegd case, I'm not sure why. I keep coming back trying to understand why people are so adamant about this guy's innocence, when there was so much evidence against him. The pro-Westerfield people seem to think that the prosecution has fooled everyone, including the jury members who were there every minute of the trial. It boggles my mind.

[kayti]

I keep coming back

DON'T

[demsux]

But the VD's, being of age, believed something else. And it is their right to do so.

Unfortunately, IMO, their "choice" of lifestyle invited tragedy into their home.

They did not PROTECT their child, instead choosing to invite strangers over to "party" on the night their child disappeared.

IMO, their actions/inactions led directly to this tragedy and their remaining children should be removed from their home.

With regard to PROTECTING one's children, I say, one strike and you're out.

[MizSterious]

Hildy--first you have to learn to read. If you'd been following the threads (as opposed to looking for ways to disrupt them) you'd know why. As it stands now, I don't see how we are responsible for bringing you up to speed. You're on your own. We have good reasons for thinking him innocent. Most of us have done the research, we've looked at the evidence, we've read the transcripts, we followed the trial. We came by our opinions honestly, and I am still convinced they convicted the wrong man.

You and the other jackals, however, were led around by the media like so many sheeple. You believed every Nancy Grace pronouncement, every false story leaked to the newspapers. Tsk tsk. No wonder Clinton was president for 8 years.

[Hildy]

Ouch, that hurt. :)

[Hildy]

How does Clinton always get into the act? Well, I'm confident they got the right man, and will sleep better knowing he's off the streets.

[Hildy]

I've had my morning fun....buh bye.

[kayti]

Ouch, that hurt. :)

So, hit the abuse button, that is the norm for you guys.

[Jaded]

Until the next one.

[MizSterious]

Now that we've chased the jackals out (who left the door open, anyway?), does anyone know if there's to be a hearing this morning? Televised, if so?

[kayti]

There is a hearing today. Half open court, half closed court, since CTV is on another trial I would venture to guess open court isn't until later.

[small_l_libertarian]

Hildy, that's just it - there isn't SO much evidence against him.

When you go through the transcripts, you see that the ONLY evidence that truly puts DW and Danielle together is the one hair in the MH sink drain trap, the blood drop in the MH hall, the blood smear on the jacket and the fingerprint on the MH cabinet. DW's former brother-in-law stated (a long time ago) that the green jacket was kept in the motorhome. So, all the prosecution proved - at all - was that Danielle was in the motorhome at some point. Neither dog hit on the motorhome, so that tells me she wasn't in there the weekend she disappeared, but sometime long before.

Everything else the prosecution put on was just smoke and mirrors. Really - go read the transcripts. Nothing puts DW in the VD house, and nothing that can't be explained by innocent contact puts Danielle in DW's house. The motorhome evidence is all the prosecution has.

Do you believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE that Danielle got into the motorhome at some point on her own? Maybe chased her dog in? Maybe followed a brother or friend in? Maybe just wanted to check it out? There was testimony from two neighbors that places the motorhome on the VD street and unlocked. I don't think it's impossible that she went in there.

Also, four bug guys agree that there's absolutely no way that Danielle's body was exposed to bugs before 2/9. DW could not have placed her body at Dehesa after 2/4 because he was under constant police surveillance. Okay - that takes care of my reasonable doubt.

Here's the real question I have about this whole case, though. If DW really did do this horrible crime, how did he do it? How does a grown man get into a house with another grown man, three kids and a dog and not get caught? How does that grown man then grab a child and get her out of the house past six adults, two kids and a dog? If you can come up with a believable scenario of how he did it, I will be happy to listen.

[Politicalmom]

You are LYING. There were about 87 "questionable" pics.

[Rheo]

I would also like to know how he did this and didn't get any of the multicolored fibers found all over her, in any of his environments.