[formerDem]

"It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They many be proved also by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence."

"[in order for the jury to reach a] RATIONAL conclusion..."

"...Further, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIALto complete a set of circumstances..." (not ALL facts, just those that are essential)

"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."

* * * *

The Van Dams put their children at risk. They were stupid, selfish, and for all their so-called "sophistication' were excrutiatingly naive about the real dangers of their 'lifestyle'. They left themselves and their children vulnerable. Someone took advantage of that vulnerability. All the evidence points to David Westerfield. There is no EVIDENCE that the Van Dams or anyone other than Mr. Westerfield killed their daughter. The fact that fiber or hair from Mr. Westerfield was not FOUND in the VD house does not mean that he was not in there, it just means that no hair or fiber was found. A REASONABLE, RATIONAL person would infer from all the circumstantial and direct evidence that David Westerfield committed this crime.

It is disappointing to see so many FR posters allowing themselves to become unreasonable and irrational; indulging in bizzare conspiracy theories, elaborate and complex scenarios for which there is no direct or circumstantial evidence, and most troubling of all, wanting Westerfield acquitted to punish the Van Dams albeit, under the guise of 'reasonable doubt'.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

It is disappointing to see someone come in here like the high and mighty and pass judgment on people who have formed their opinions based on their own observations and conclusions.

How odd that you and a few others feel the need to fly in with some fatherly, superior tone as if you're looking down upon us.

So full of yourself it had to oveflow somewhere and you chose this thread, huh?

[pinz-n-needlez]

You left the party, what, 5 minutes ago?

[the Deejay]

Perhaps you should re-think your political party......And return to *them*.

[NatureGirl]

indulging in bizzare conspiracy theories

REALLY? Tsk tsk. That must be a first for FR.

direct evidence

Direct evidence? Such as? I'm sure that all I've heard in the closing arguments this week (from both sides) is that all the evidence is circumstantial .

Please explain your take on the bug testimony. And try to leave out anything that smacks of "bug theory doesn't work". The prosecution (and DUSEK) in particular have won cases using the bug boys.

[bvw]

I have read and re-read three times your posting and am unable to see from your use of bolding, caps, italics on the the jury instructions, and your little statement that follows, what exactly you are arguing, what premise you are arguing against, what logic drives to a conclusion, and at the end what conclusion you are making besides whining. Perhaps you should start from scratch and try again, give it some time for review before posting though. No sense risking embarrassment, if you have some point you are trying to make you haven't done it justice yet, and a second miscue might kill any chance you have of getting that point across to people with other things to do.