Replies

Ohhh, I know some people who won't like these instructions. They will want to strike those, and replace them with these new ones:

1. Ignore any exculpatory evidence. You already know he did it, so vote "guilty."

2. He's a middle-aged, heavyset, balding "creepy" guy who once owned porn. That's all that matters. Vote "guilty."

3. Remember: sweating, cooperating with the police, owning and/or using bleach, leaving a hose out in the yard, closing curtains, going camping alone, and most especially, being a middle-aged, heavyset, balding "creepy" guy who once owned porn is all the evidence you need. Vote "guilty."

4. His mother called him a "horndog." What more evidence do you need? Vote "guilty."

5. Everyone on Court TV says he's guilty. So should you. (We know you're watching, but we won't tell--wink, nudge.)

While hard, this has become a win-win for Westerfield. If not guilty, he can still pursue civil actions against his false accusors. If found guilty, or even a hung jury, there is enough poisoning and prejudicial behaviour on the part of the police, the DA and Judge (including that last little bit on an overrule of Feldman, where the Judge made a suggestion that emotion/feelings could be used to convict -- not eactly in those words but in context the inference was unambiguous and clear), that a decent appeal could claim that any guilty in this trial or re-trial would be invalid. I'm guessing on the law -- the law in appeal in a case like this can be expected to blaze its own trail.

I think the reason Feldman kept away from one obvious line of attack -- the pyschology of porn -- was twofold. One that Dusek would counter this expert testimony far more effectively -- meaning with confusion rather than facts and science, thus greviously diluting the very strong bugmen expert testimony. Two that at may make the appeal stronger on the basis that the jury and general public were irrecoverably poisoned by the prejudicial use of the pornography.

Notice that Dusek didn't bring any prosecution experts to testify as to the psychology of porn (if there were I'm sorry for missing such). How could he? It is no real motive demonstrated in science. Feldman would have blown the experts out of the water, without perhaps bringing on many or any of his own. In that way, the bugmen's expert testimony's weight would not be lessened.