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

CNN.com ^ | August 9, 2002 | CNN

[ican'tbelieveit]

Oh Miz, that made my stomach roll. How could a parent do that to their baby.

[small_l_libertarian]

Good. It's been such a relief the last few days to have visitors to these threads willing to have an open mind. We fight a lot here! I've enjoyed talking with you.

[DoughtyOne]

Interesting comments Judy. I'm not trying to insult you, but did you embelish any of this? Sounds rather powerful the way you stated it. Seems to me the defense should have used a number of your arguements if they were bonified.

[MizSterious]

Well, I brought it up because I've always been concerned about the parents of Danielle. I know the libs on here like to say someone's "private sex life" shouldn't be a factor, but in this case I believe it could be. They were swingers, and belonged to several swinger networks. They might have even belonged to one of these. I believe it could be possible with Damon at least, and possibly Brenda as well. I think the porn on the van Dam computers should have been part of the evidence along with DW's porn.

[MizSterious]

D1, a good deal of what Judy wrote is in the transcripts. These are things that have kept a lot of us wondering about what's going on in San Diego.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. Nice talking to you folks too.

[Jaded]

Feldman implied it in both the opening and closing statements. To attack Brenda about it would have been deadly. To give Dusek an opportunity to twist every statement David made would be just as deadly. IMO.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks.

[bvw]

"The most damaging pornography in DAW's possession was on a CD"

In this case the pornography can only be considered to be character evidence. Why? Becuase, as fas as I know, no expert witnesses were brought in to specify that there is either a general link between pornography and murder, or in the case of Mr. Westerfield, a specific pyschological precondition that the pornography would excaberate to probable result of the forceful rape and murder of a young girl.

Yet character evidence was absent from this trial, and I have seen mentioned on these threads that character evidence is not permitted in a murder trial, but may only enter in the sentencing phase.

That Judge Mudd allowed it, and against the most strident objections of advocate Feldman, will I believe, alone provide more than adequate grounds for appeal and reversal upon appeal.

[DoughtyOne]

Those seemingly (to me at least) fake tears by Brenda and Damon in the prelim, put me on notice that something wasn't kosher. I've never felt right about this case since.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree with you that, in this case, if he were innocent, Westerfield should have taken the stand.

No matter how hard the jurors try to ignore the current environment of Samantha, Smart, Jon Benet and Casey - I don't believe they can do it.

IMHO, the jury is liable to convict him because they couldn't individually live with the thought of a guilty child molester/murderer being set free by their own hand.

If like Avila, he were set free and indicted again for another instance - they would crush under their own guilt. I suspect the jurors are thinking this way underneath all attempts to be objective.

If he were innocent, the drilling of the prosecutor would be met with tearful pleas "I didn't do it." A lot of times, IMHO, that is what the jurors want to hear.

[Krodg]

Some people simply do not make good witnesses. Look at how poorly Westerfield did in his interview with LE. Don't you think Duesk would have twisted his statements?

[Politicalmom]

Well, then those people are violating the constitution.

[Alamo-Girl]

True, but it is very much like "jury nullification." Ultimately, the jury decides whether to accept or reject even the law.

[Krodg]

I kept wondering why he was using her testimony, when it had been proven she lied. Dummy! (not you LOL)

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

I agree with you that, in this case, if he were innocent, Westerfield should have taken the stand.  No matter how hard the jurors try to ignore the current environment of Samantha, Smart, Jon Benet and Casey - I don't believe they can do it.  IMHO, the jury is liable to convict him because they couldn't individually live with the thought of a guilty child molester/murderer being set free by their own hand.  If like Avila, he were set free and indicted again for another instance - they would crush under their own guilt. I suspect the jurors are thinking this way underneath all attempts to be objective.

It would seem that you are correct.  I don't know how they could completely dismiss the other cases from their minds.  This is a case where I'm not going to feel good if he gets off, or if he gets convicetd.  Either way I'm going to have some doubts.

If he were innocent, the drilling of the prosecutor would be met with tearful pleas "I didn't do it." A lot of times, IMHO, that is what the jurors want to hear.

I would agree with that.  And I discount badgering by prosecuting attornies.  I think jurors can see through that, especially if the defendant can act in ways they can identify with.  And if they wind up thinking the PA is a jerk, it can swing the verdict.

71 posted on 8/9/02 8:59 AM Pacific by Alamo-Girl

[tdhjohnsmom]

At one time, I would have thought, "police planting evidence, yeah, right", but after following this trial, I have changed my mind and think it is entirely possible.

In this case, several witnesses testified under oath that their statements had not been recorded correctly by LE. LE embellished BVD's statement that pointed to DW in order to get a warrant, and then there's Diane Halfman's involvement from the beginning. Kinda makes me go hmmmmmmmmmm.

[Jaded]

If anybody wants to join me in praying for the jury during deliberations, I'm going to set aside some time every day. The two or more gathered together principle, don't ya know.

I'm thinking the jury deliberations, since they're not going to be sequestered, may begin daily around 9:00 Pacific Time, which would be 10 am Mountain, 11 am Central, and noon Eastern time. So that's when I'll be praying. Noon my time. You are all welcome to join me.

---

The Prayer

---

Lord, grant these twelve jurors great wisdom to understand all the testimony they have heard over the past two months, and the clarity of mind to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Give them strength to endure, and fill them with a sense of honor and integrity, and the desire to do what is right.

May You shine the light of truth into the darkness of their confusion, that the jurors will discern honesty from those who bear false witness against their neighbor.

Although You say "Justice is Mine," may You see fit to allow justice for Danielle here on this earth, that her death may not lead to the death of other innocents.

We pray that truth will prevail, and that the sword of justice will weigh heavily on those who would use it falsely to bring glory to themselves.

May Your will be done, in Jesus name.

Amen.



Pray for strength and guidance for all of the friends and families involved in this ordeal.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Well, then those people are violating the constitution

Yes they are. Furthermore, all attorneys are slick to one degree or another.

They can sometimes make white look convincingly black. Dusek would have delighted in making Westerfield appear guilty no matter what he said.

Feldman played it safe and did what was best for his client. Shame and disgrace on anyone who assumes that means guilt.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Very true, and of course, considering their lifestyle, how could they do that to their own children.