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.
I know you've seen this many times, but I just wanted to post it again on the slight chance you might have your eyes and mind open at the same time.
Considering the section of the jury instructions you cited, I cannot see how anyone can convict on kidnapping.
There is nothing indicating that an abduction even occurred; let alone that Westerfield was responsible. How could one justify voting guilt on the charge of kidnapping?