Replies

I believe there may have been some question about police interview tactics. Perhaps an agreement was made not to challenge all evidence if certain parts were withheld. It may also be that certain evidence may have been embarassing to the parents and the police opted not to reveal it all in order to spare them, thinking they had plenty without it. This may be pretty flimsey, but sometimes things come up that preclude certain evidence from being aired in court.

After the Rampart scandal, I tend to disbelieve until I see a smoking gun. Take OJ Simpson, for instance. Until the infamous Bronco chase, I thought he was being railroaded. I personally would rather judge someone innocent until proven guilty, either by evidence, or the person's own actions after the fact.

All I can say is that my gut says there's something rotten in Denmark...This whole case stinks to high heaven. Oh, and the best lies always contain a grain of truth.

Well I do think it's important that we wait to condemn people until the evidence is in, not inuendo, not rumors, not some fifth generation story that may be embelished or completely fictitous.

I want to be fully supportive of police officers. I also want to be fully supportive of defendant's rights within reason.

Interrogating someone for 48 hours straight without representation present is very problematic for me. It goes way beyond individual rights, even though they are very important. A good officer knows you don't push the limits on constitutional rights because it's the best way to make sure a guilty person goes free. These guys ran the risk of blowing this case bigtime.

Thinking people see what these guys did and extrapolate the theory that this goes on all the time. Does it? Sadly I think it goes on more than most of us are willing to admit.

The police have a tough job. They have to extrapolate meaning. Those extrapolations may be accurate. They may be falacious. If they are falacious, and they get carried away, their actions may jeopardize the case.

When I was a kid I participated in one incident of vandalism. A bunch of similar vandalism had taken place, so the investigating officers were convinced that I was responsible for it all. That was a natural assumption. It was also a major screwup. It lead them to target me and let the actual perps get away with their acts.

I had picked an old lock. You could pick old locks with a screwdriver or a butter knife. These guys equated this with picking some modern locks. I tried to explain the difference and that I didn't know anything about the more modern locks. They were sure I was lying.

It is VERY dangerous to accept the theory that miniscule bits of evidence are proof positive of anything. A few pictures of girls 13 and above are not proof someone is a pedophile involving seven year olds, let alone a brutal murderer capable of mutilating or burning a young child's body.

At this point I believe that Westerfield is guilty. I also believe that group dynamics have created a situation where certain existant and non-existant evidence has been misinterpreted to buttress certain things that may be true, but were not in fact proven by the materials sited for that purpose by members of the public.

We all like to speculate. I think that's okay as long as we recognize the implications of what is proven and the reality of what isn't.