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.

[Krodg]

It sure fits Damon more than Dave!!

[kayti]

"It sure helped me understand how many of you came to a conclusion that defies common sense. "

Hit and Run at it again. He sets up a false premise/argument and then declares himself victor of the argument.

May common sense prevail in this case!! DW didn't do it. The evidence is out, testimony complete and there is NOTHING evidentuary there against DW kidnapping and murdering this child.

[the Deejay]

"One could hardly have placed a pocket comb, much less a whole man the size of DW, into that closet!"

And can you imagine LE & Dusek suggesting to the jury that DW was hiding in that closet??!! Talk about insulting their intelligence. I would make Dusek eat that photo.

[Politicalmom]

You are an arrogant jerk. You have repeatedly stated that you are "right". Only GOD is always right. I am FED UP with you.

Why don't you do one of your STUPID made-up statistic posts about the coincidences FOR Westerfield. What are the chance that ONLY two fibers that were similar to something in Westerfield's environment were found? What about ALL the other fibers on her that were NOT found in his environment??

How about one on the chances of Westerfield being in SO many places, and not leaving a single trace of himself??

Stop telling those of us who believe DW is not guilty that we are stupid and have no common sense.

People who think so highly of themselves usually have very few real friends.

[kayti]

Your right in what you have argued to find yourself innocent. Now your guilt will be established by your DNA in her vaginal area, mouth and possibly on her breast. You are an idiot.

[mommya]

"If you wish to stay ignorant about what the jury was told on how to weigh the evidence and what the instructions mean, be my guest."

Me - ignorant? I think it is you who are misunderstanding the instruction - do you have a reading comprehension problem? What the attornies said in their closings was not evidence - so Dusek's little schpeel about what to do regarding this is just as irrelevant as Feldman's - the instruction comes from the court - and is clear. You're example was lame - can't you come up with something better? If you want to argue about our all our different interpretations of what "reasonable" is - you've got a better chance of making your point - but you cannot argue with the instruction - well sanely anyway.

I posed the question about the tenth person being LE - because early on we heard there was an LE arrest in the candyman probe - do you recall that?

[the Deejay]

One would think that VRWC_minion would at least know who the prosecutor is from the defense attorney.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

HUGE DITTO..........Post #284 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mommya]

One would indeed.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

"One indication is that the DNA from hair degrades when in contact with water."

DNA only a few weeks old? Follicle derived DNA? Got a link to this information?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

After so much of Minnie-mania, I'm beginning to think there ought to be a test required to become a registered freeper. Sheeeeeesh........how much idiocy must we suffer?

[spectre]

Hey, Southie...and you were wondering where we all were today?

You called..we answered :~)

sw

[pinz-n-needlez]

take a closer look at my adultery example

No. I REALLY don't want to. One look was quite enough. LOL

Feldman and Dusek made it a point to present totally different interpretations of that instruction. The jury will decide what it means. It makes no difference what we think.

How 'bout PG examples from now on? Please?

[the Deejay]

"DNA only a few weeks old? Follicle derived DNA? Got a link to this information?"

I know. King of the dumbed down society(?)

[MizSterious]

"One would think that VRWC_minion would at least know who the prosecutor is from the defense attorney."

And we should bow to his "superior intelligence" (trying real hard not to spew iced tea when I type that) when he doesn't even know who the attorneys are? One has to wonder if he knows anything else, either. I mean, that's basic.

[pinz-n-needlez]

check your freepmail

[the Deejay]

"I'm beginning to think there ought to be a test required to become a registered freeper."

I so agree. Same with voters. I think everyone should pass an I.Q. test before being allowed to vote.

[Green]

I think everyone should pass an I.Q. test before being allowed to vote

I'd be satisfied somewhat if they would just make sure the voters were human and alive.

[the Deejay]

When he kept getting the attorneys WRONG, after being corrected........Sheeesh!! Reminds me of the "thick
headed people", my mother used to refer to.

[the Deejay]

Human and alive is good. Actually, if they just were required to pass a Common Sense Test, would suit me fine.
They don't have to be scholars.