 |
Jury's time
|
| DAY TWO: FRIDAY, AUG. 9, 2002 | |
| 12 noon ET | Jury enters jury room. |
| 2:30 p.m. ET | Jury goes home for the weekend. |
Posted on 08/12/2002 6:39:08 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Jury's time
Jurors will resume deliberations Monday in the capital case of David Westerfield, who is accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam
DAY TWO: FRIDAY, AUG. 9, 2002
12 noon ET
Jury enters jury room.
2:30 p.m. ET
Jury goes home for the weekend.
| DAY ONE: THURSDAY, AUG. 8, 2002 | |
| 1:10 p.m. ET | Jury begins deliberating. After two months of testimony, the capital murder trial of David Westerfield is in the hands of the jurors, who began their deliberations following more than two days of closing arguments. |
| 2:50 p.m. | Jury sends a note to the judge. |
| 3:00 p.m. | Jury at lunch. |
| 4:30 p.m. | Judge calls the lawyers but not the public or the press into the courtroom. |
| 5:15 p.m. | Judge says jurors sent note asking to deliberate five days a week instead of having Friday off and he approved their request. |
| 7:00 p.m. | Jury goes home for the day. Will return Friday morning. |
I have 3 cats now (mother and two 3 month old kittens) and a St Bernard. The mother was a pregnant stray that I took in, and I couldn't let go of those two kittens. LOL She had EIGHT! 4 died at birth, and I took 2 to the shelter.
I think it's about time for you to get another kitty. Yours was beautiful!
So you don't have a problem with my stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium? I keep it right next to the anthrax spores, on the shelf below the bag of ricin and bucket of VX nerve agent.
Echelon--just kidding, trying to make a point.
small_l--did I succeed in making the point?
"One might say, he was convinced of guilt, because of the blood."Therefore you are saying that the juror is saying there is NO other reasonable way the "blood" -- some shmear containing DNA, as testified to -- could be there. The ONLY reaonable explanation for the shmear is that it got there when took the girl and murdered her. That denies the alternate and reasonable explanations that the shmear was (1) placed there after the fact by some party (2) placed there by Brenda or Danielle or one of her brothers during some explore in the MH at some point over the past year or so.
Further it requires a leap of faith, a leap that has been ignored from remark in this proceeding and commentaries on it.
What is that leap of faith? That Danielle was murdered at all. She is dead and her body discovered far from home, but murder was never demonstrated -- itself -- beyond a reasonable doubt.
To me just the condition of the body -- that no cause of death could be determined, that no visible sign of trauma was discovered -- meant that absent direct evidence such as a bloody knife, blood splatter, blood trails, choking device with matching marks, blunt instrument with matching marks and/or body material embedded in it, without any of those direct evidences no murder can ever be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I can not explain why that basic and fundamental deficiency in evidence was not more in peoples minds and discourses. It is troubling.
An important point, I hate coming in late!
Drugs would not lead to association with unsavory characters if they were not illegal. The point you make, p-mom, is that the laws against drugs cause harm, not that the drugs cause harm.
Likewise with other examples(robbery, drug-related homicides, gang violence) that try to blame the substance for a problem that is created by the laws against them. There wouldn't be the gang-war over drug dealing turf, anymore than there is gang-war over beer-dealing turf, if you could buy it in the grocery store.
Not really.
It could mean that Brenda had been in there -- which opens up all kinds of possibilities. Or, maybe it was the boys.
And then there's the "when?' part of that to ponder.
Corrupted / planted evidence? We wouldn't tend to assume that sort of thing, but why wasn't the hand-print found on the first visit? Other things, as well.
The entire sequence of events strikes me as very odd. I'm not inclined toward being "conspiratorial". For example, I never did believe that JFK shot Martin Luther King.
Still, there are a quite a few things in the evidence that seem "off". Maybe someday someone will make a list. It includes just about everything. There is very little that seems solid or to stand too well on its own, even without a close look.
I know what you're saying. One of my brothers had a pure white Persian. Gorgeous cat, but Lordy, Lordy, that FACE! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.