| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/09/2002 10:27:00 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war |
Posted on 08/08/2002 10:18:48 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:58 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
So your theory is that both the judge and Feldman set the stage for a guaranteed mistrial ? The difference in instructions is so central to the case that it would mean the whole case would be appealable.
I get accused of adultery. The proof she has is that a woman was in bed and so was I. We are both naked. There is semen on the sheets. The jury is give the evidence and begins deliberation.
Using the preferred method of evidence handling by many here we can prove that my sister-in-law doesn't exist.
I have been following VD/DW threads on FR ever since this hit the news in early Feb., and the original threads from about March 1 show FReepers thinking and supposing with the general public that DW was guilty. I was one of the few at the early date when body was found, to say it could not have been DW that put it there.
I would say we have had a steady progression on FR from about 80% anti-DW on March 1 to about 70% pro-DW on August 1. Surely the sheer weakness of the prosecution case, their failure to prove or even evidence ANYTHING, must be the reason.
Let me again sum up the relevant facts:
1. No evidence DW had any tendency or motive to do anything at all to Danielle or had ever even noticed her.
2. No evidence that anyone entered the VD home, not only did DW not enter it, no one else entered it without permission EITHER!
3. Lots of evidence that things were pretty abnormal at VD household on Fri pm already, weird...was she already gone or harmed or dead?
4. If as I assume, Danielle was out playing in the street or at the local mini-park, there is no reason to think DW is the one who took her, indeed he was probably already gone in the MH before she ever came out to play.
5. VD children and Brenda had been in MH. We still have no adequate disclosure of just how far DW/Brenda relationship had gone, at least once.
6. Whoever killed Danielle hated the girl, brutalized her, knocked out her teeth, not so easy to do...Not DW.
7. Attention to body rather than immediate dumping, possible keeping of her alive for a week or 10 days, ...indicates against a stranger perp and argues for an inside job. DW would be a stranger perp if the prosecution is correct.
8. DW could not have put this body on Dehesa Rd; an accomplice would be needed. If we start with the body placement and work BACK, we will be better able to see what happened.
9. All the DNA evidence was likely planted from the one sample available to LE, that from the vaginal discharge in Danielle's panties. This is why such tiny spots only were put in the MH in one place, and on the WRONG jacket in the other. LE goofed up and put the Danielle DNA not on the sports coat he left with cleaners that weekend, but on an old warmup jacket that had been with cleaners since 1/26.
I need to shriek....
**FREE NINJA DAVE**FREE NINJA DAVE**FREE NINJA DAVE**
Be sure and go vote in the Jury Room. There be jackals in there.
Here's a repost of the Jury Instructions from mommya in post #145. Please try to read more carefully. The bold type specifically refutes your statement above.
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.
I am doing three things at once. Sorry.
Back to your rant.
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.