[Krodg]

I would think that most people having an affair, wouldn't want witnesses. DW would be the only defense witness with actual knowledge and IMO it would have been a mistake to have him take the stand about that. Besides, Brenda would deny it, so you have he says/she says.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Besides, Brenda would deny it, so you have he says/she says.

This reminds me of something in Dusek's rebuttal argument. Did you notice how often he held Brenda's testimony up as if she were a pillar of honesty?

Every time he said, "Brenda van Dam told us, blah, blah, blah", I wondered if jurors thought as I did.........."So what !!!!"

[DoughtyOne]

Seems to me that Westerfild would have been a very powerful witness. He could have explained away the porn in human terms that most of the jury would have understood. He could have mentioned a more detailed relationship with Brenda and possible incursions into the trailer that would have made it easy for the jury to discount some or all of the evidence there. Having him sit there and respond as any human would, would seem to be a great idea. I wonder what the defense was concerned with, that prevented this.

[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.