Skip to comments.
Evidence On Insects Likely To Continue: (Westerfield Trial "Creeps" Along At An Ant's Pace!)
Union Trib ^
| June 29, 2002
| Alex Roth
Posted on 07/28/2002 8:56:21 PM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 741-758 next last
To: VRWC_minion
By asking to have lesser charge entered, I wonder if Feldman is sending a signal he is willing to take a deal if offered by prosecutor ?
If the Goff guy is good then prosecutor may pass but if Goff guy isn't then there may be one in the works.
To: clearvision
Excellant point. Much more evidence would be required for the jury to choose between two options. Much easier for them to say he DID IT, without having to deal with the fact that they disagree with each other on HOW.
To: VRWC_minion
So, if he uses my theory to explain what happen can I graduate from Thread Jackal ? Yeah, but then Dusek has to take your place as class clown. (/sarcasm :)
To: nycgal; BARLF
I was looking for brenda's statement and ran across this..
http://members.cox.net/jeneal/PrelimTranscripts/020311p1.txt
Johnny Keene
9 Q. Did he say what his relationship with
10 Brenda Van Dam was?
11 A. He told me he'd only met her, including that
12 meeting, he'd only met her three times.
13 Q. What were the three occasions that he told you
14 he'd run into Brenda Van Dam?
15 A. The first occasion was the Friday night previous
16 to Friday, February 1st. He said he met her -- or he saw
17 her at Dad's Bar.
snip
26 Q. When did he say was the second contact he had
27 with Brenda Van Dam?
28 A. He said the second contact was either the
1 Wednesday or Thursday, which would have been January 30th
2 or 31st, I believe, would have been the dates. He said
3 Brenda and her daughter Danielle and her youngest son came
4 to his door selling girl scout cookies.
snip
27 Q. Third meeting was when?
28 A. The third meeting was Friday, February 1st, again
1 at dad's bar.
To: VRWC_minion
I think ClearVision has it exactly right. It was to point out the problem with Where, When and How, which is exactly how Feldman's buddy put it today.
To: VRWC_minion
I don't see this in the opening statements at all. Is it possible you and others are making an assumption that this was said ? No, YOU ARE ABSOLUETY CORRECT. Myself and others are confusing DUSEK's opening statement with HIS WHOLE PRESENTATION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE. Sorry.
To: John Jamieson
Where is the evidence that Danielle was ever in the SUV? I must have missed that.Regardless of the theories used he she has to be in the SUV at least once. Unless the pros is going to claim that she was tied up in house while he got RV and managed to get her into it unseen while at the house.
However, you a right I don't recall what forensic evidence was in the SUV. I thought I remembered some fiber evidence on her that was also found on SUV. I guess that part needs further looking at. Any chance you or someone remember what day of testimony the fiber stuff was done ?
To: John Jamieson
That makes sense. Good lawyering on Feldman's part.
To: VRWC_minion
This was the same feeling about the recent Martha Moxley case in CT until the attorney skill fully tied all the testimony together at the closing to construct the points so they all led to Skakel's conviction. This 'example' has been tried before on these threads. It has also been totally debunked here. Are you all getting this crap from the same source?
SORRY,someone is filling you full of crapola.
I do not doubt that there have been cases where a DA pulled together loose ends and made his case, just don't try to pass over BS on me.
To: UCANSEE2
On the radio today, and I just couldn't stop thinking about Danielle:
Oh, listen to the children while they play,
Now ain't it kinda funny what the children say,
Skip a rope.
Daddy hates mommy, mommy hates dad,
Last night you shoulda heard the fight they had,
Gave little sister another bad dream,
She woke us all up with a terrible scream.
Cheat on your taxes, don't be a fool,
Now what was that they said about a Golden Rule?
Never mind the rules, just play to win,
And hate your neighbour for the shade of his skin.
Stab 'em in the back, that's the name of the game,
And mommy and daddy are who's to blame.
Skip a rope, skip a rope,
Just listen to your children while they play,
It's really not very funny, what the children say,
Skip a rope, skip a rope.
To: John Jamieson
Can you point me to the trans. I will read em.
To: UCANSEE2
That's the atty's PURPOSE. Display the facts or evidence to the jury and then tie it all together in the end. Just what do you think the purpose of the "closing" statement is?
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Kim, to put it on a warrant, they need to have specific reasons, not general.
To: UCANSEE2
Are you all getting this crap from the same source?No, I live in CT and it was 24/7.
The larger point is that you really have no idea what the prosecutor's theory is yet. You are attempting to read between the lines and you may not be reading correctly.
To: UCANSEE2
Not available yet. I'll keep checking SIGNONSANDIEGO.
To: UCANSEE2
tieing it all together...means summarizing it and presenting your 'argument'.
Click me
closing argument : the final address to the jury by the attorney for each side of a case in which the attorney usu. summarizes the evidence and his or her client's position (called also closing statement, final argument, summation, summing-up) Note: Rule 29.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the prosecution to open the closing argument after the closing of the evidence. The defense replies, and the prosecution may offer a rebuttal
To: VRWC_minion
"you really have no idea what the prosecutor's theory is yet"
Do you think they really have one that fits. None of us have been able to come up with one!
To: UCANSEE2
I'm sure that aside from whatever clues they received from the DW interview, when a kidnapping of a little girl happens,they have a pre-made list of items to look for... Otherwise, they'd be winging it every time.
To: UCANSEE2
25 THE COURT: I think everyone knows what the
26 burden of proof is in a preliminary hearing, and it appears
27 to this court and to me that the crimes alleged in the
28 complaint have been committed. There's no question about
Page 751
1 that.
2 I have reasonable cause to believe that
3 Mr. Westerfield is guilty of them. He will be held to
4 answer.
To: UCANSEE2
Maintain cool running.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 741-758 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson