[alisasny]

Most of you think that DW will either be found guilty or hung jury by this particular jury.

Most of you also believe DW is innocent.

Now I admit I have trouble with this case convicting since their is NO evidence of him being in the VD home.

However I was wondering why you think this jury will NOT see that.

Also with that missing evidence why did DW not take stand? Was he afraid of being convicted of the porn on his computer? He would have had to admit that on the stand. He is guilty of that. Do you have a problem with him admiting that on stand? Do you have a problem of him being convicted of just that charge?

[small_l_libertarian]

He's not necessarily guilty of any crime concerning the porn. The police computer investigator testified at the preliminary hearing that he saw NO prepubescent children among the images. It is up to the jury to decide whether the people in the images are minors - the police have only described about 80 images as "questionable."

I think he didn't testify because that would have left him open to Dusek questions like, "Did you kill her after you raped her?" "After you raped the innocence out of that poor little child, how did you get rid of her body?"

There's no answering questions like that.

[MizSterious]

It's been explained. You've chosen to either not understand or to reject the explanation. Sorry, it's not up to me (or any of us) to re-explain over and over.

[bvw]

Re being convicted on the porn -- considering that the warrant made out to search Westerfield's house was based on lies, and going no further than that -- yes I do have a problem with the charge and any conviction.

Further, this murder trail was the wrong place to hear this case, if even it had been legit. The porn charges are prosecutorial mis-conduct and the decision by the Judge to allow them to be incorporated, I do hope, will not only be the thing that wins for Westerfield on appeal, but also that causes some form of rebuke to Mudd.

[sawsalimb]

Regarding the porn found on his comp,here's a hypothetical scenario:

Westerfield has a kid. Westerfield knows damn good and well that the kid surfed some porn,but wants to keep the kid out of this mess to the greatest extent possible. So he just might tell the kid to not admit to going anywhere near that computer-after all,Westerfield is middle aged,intelligent,and-at least to some extent-capable of looking out for himself. The kid is 18,with his life in front of him,and getting smeared in a high profile case like this will screw up the kid's life for a long time. Anyone else have a take on this?

[gigi]

I'm not sure he is guilty of child porn, due to witness testimony,(too much to go into). I thought Feldman was pretty confident when he told the jury to look and make their own decisions. But if thats all they convict him on then so be it.

I'm hoping that the jury looks at the fact there is no evidence of DW being in the VD's home. I hope they look at the unidentified fingerprints and DNA found in the VD's home and wonder as we all do " Who do they belong to?" That and the "bug" evidence is plenty for reasonable doubt.

All 12 jurors would have to adopt the theory that DVD was in the MH sometime in the past and had left the fingerprints and dna. I'm not sure that will happen.

I don't think DW should have testified.. If Feldman had put him on the stand he would have been roundly critized for it. DW's statement is all he needed.

[Krodg]

I have have followed this trial on several forums and they each have people who see the blood evidence and exclude everything else. Each forum also has people who, after hearing the testimony and seeing the evidence, have reasonable doubt. I find it hard to believe a juror going into deliberations with reasonable doubt would now be swayed by another juror's opinion.

This is what I base my prediction of hung jury on. I may well be wrong.

[Jaded]

Between the pressure from the media and the community's NEED to make someone pay... he's convenient.