Deliberations Resume Friday, 8-9-02 In Trial Of David Westerfield (VERDICT WATCH CONTINUES!)

CNN.com ^ | August 9, 2002 | CNN

[FresnoDA]

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) --A San Diego jury began deliberations Thursday in the trial of David Westerfield, accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.

The panel of six men and six women adjourned for the day without reaching a verdict. It is set to resume deliberations Friday.

[countess]

Good recall, Jaded. IIRC, one of the jurors sent a note to the judge earlier in the week regarding a Dr's appointment at 1:30 p.m. on Friday. Obviously the folks at Fox aren't paying as much attention as you are. They are speculating about how a jury that asked just yesterday to meet on Friday would call it quits at noon. I thought the press wasn't going to be informed about their schedule during deliberations.

[mommya]

No kidding - the judge? I thought they did not want the media knowing their comings and goings?

[KnutCase]

My opinion...because the parents are not on trial here. This was an explanation by someone else (another thread).

[the Deejay]

How 'bout the judge "testifying" on an
objection by Dusek, during Feldman's
closing!? It was in reference to the
color of Brenda's sweater.

I've never witnessed anything like that
in court before. Mudd & the entire
prosecution team has had me jumping out
of my chair all through this trial.

[mommya]

This is from the transcripts - jury instructions - I saw it while browsing another forum too - thought I would put it up here - It is crucial........

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

BOTH DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER. HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT PERMITS TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

[JudyB1938]

If you have time, go back and start reading all of the threads from the beginning. Might take you a non-stop week ... LOL ... Ignore the stupid flaming back and forth between a few of the posters. You will certainly get an eye opening on the inadequacies of our judicial system! (Whether Westerfield is guilty or not!)

The testimonies have been taken each day and analysed. Media statements and interviews have been subjected to the same scrutiny. Floor plans and geographical maps have been studied. Research into what the law actually stipulates has been thorough. Etc Etc Etc

Many of us started out believing the man was guilty. After months of seeing the truth come out, we have changed our minds. However, I don't mean to malign people like cyncooper who still believe in his guilt. At least they are rational people and are merely interpreting the same facts in a different light than somebody like me.

[Greg Weston]

I've never seen so much nutbag BS speculation since the OJ trial. So Westerfield "didn't have enough" child rape porno to mean anything. Ridiculous. And 10 zillion other red herrings that don't amount to squat.

It's really a disgrace that some are willing let Westerfield off on child murder because they don't like the kids parents or whatever crazy thing. Absolutely disgraceful.

[Greg Weston]

Amen.

[mommya]

You are out of line - and I don't think they looked for all those things you are thinking they did - that is the problem.

[kayti]

Interesting thing on Rowland. Hopefully since that would be an FBI investigation, maybe even Interpol, they might scrounge around and maybe encounter DvD along the way!

VanDam's PR is going to be hot and heavy over the next few days while the jury is deliberating. They have a lot they want to keep covered up, looking as victimized as possible.

[Jrabbit]

THREADJACKAL ALERT!

[SilentWitness]

A sunny hello from Poway, CA!

Multi-year lurker, 1st time 'talker'. I enjoy and appreciate all the comments here from all views. Learn a lot.

Please bear with my slowness and/or typing. I do have a question regarding the jury instruction to handle a fact/evidence determined circumstantial in nature. If there are 2 reasonable explanations for its existence, then it must serve the defendant, otherwise one discards the fact/evidence in whole? If true, then the jury may then proceed to the next fact/evidence?

If true, then why didn’t Feldman object to Dusek’s misstatement of the law; you have to look at the big picture than apply reasonableness? Thanks.

[Greg Weston]

>>>They have a lot they want to keep covered up<<<

Are you a Van Dam insider? Please tell us all about this important info.

[Jaded]

Don't you think they checked forensic evidence of everyone as well as everywhere Danielle had been?

Um, no. Didn't you listen to testimony of the criminalists where they stated under oath that they did not test anything that pointed away from Westerfied?

Note to self: get new batteries
TJ Alert

[L,TOWM]

Have a nice day.

[mommya]

That's what I'd like to know.

[Neenah]

Judge Mudd refused to allow any evidence into trial that reflected badly upon the Van Dam's.

You....are....brilliant !!

[Jrabbit]

You are so correct. Any evidence that didn't match with DW's "environment" was discarded. The fibers from BVD's orange sweater weren't compared to other orange fibers. And she does have an orange sweater. She wore it to court.

[the Deejay]

There *are* posters that like to make facts up.
Embellish, as to evidence that doesn't exist,
and just out & out lie to make things fit their
side of the case. (I don't bother posting to
them.)