[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.

[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?

[Kerensky]

Seems to me that Westerfild would have been a very powerful witness

And he still may be. This is only the beginning. If convicted there will be an appeal.