No Decision From Westerfield Jury: Deliberations Continue Tuesday, August 13, 2002

KGTV ^ | August 13, 2002 | KGTV

[Rheo]

Mudd excluded the Danielle L photos from the porn..only available to jurors if they requested it.

so, it doesn't sound like they are able to include it as porn but maybe comparing the fact that this real girl was around DW and he did not abuse her against the computer porn that may or may not have been viewed by him...???

That would be insane for Susan to be considered a child porn peddler...but with this case??

[demsux]

just arrived, hadn't heard anything about that

[Rheo]

Feldman mentioned it in his case and maybe again in closing..don't recall for sure.

[KnutCase]

Deadly if inhaled in large quantities. Are there large quantities? You're better off sniffing glue.

[mommya]

Stay away from that whole area. First they thought it was ammonia - now they are saying chlorine - there is a big whitish yellowish greenish cloud around there - yikes.

[mommya]

Looks large to me - It's spewing a big cloud out of a train tanker car. Fortunately - I think it's not smack dab in the middle of a residential area - but there are houses around being evacuated.

[small_l_libertarian]

Lunchtime! No verdict-reading allowed without me, so you guys are gonna have to wait for an hour. :-)

[John Jamieson]

I forgive you, try to be a little more analytical.

John

[irgbar-man]

A psychologist saying there is probably one "rogue" juror who is into pornography

Does this shrink have any inside information or is (s)he just blowing smoke?

[The Other Harry]

Now, go back to jury requests of the past two days: a) they wanted audio tape of DW's interview with police, b) they wanted pics and porn tapes. From here we must assume they the jury is looking for a way to exclude DW from involvement, or to include him. My thoughts are they are going over these two items with a fine tooth comb. If they get by these two obstacles, then they go on to Means and Opportunity. Am I getting this right?

It sounds to me like you're getting it exactly right.

Would you (or anyone) happen to know whether there is some way we can get at those audio tapes over the internet?

I will agree with small-l about the porn with respect to establishing motive. No matter how it is interpreted as to under-age, there is no rational or evidenciary basis for it to be used to establish motive. In my view, is is simply prejudicial and should have been excluded.

If the procsecution seriously wanted to try it on its own merits (which I doubt they would have), the porn should have been tried serarately.

[JudyB1938]

http://www.sandiego-online.com/issues/august02/featurea60802.shtml

This online magazine has six pages devoted to: "San Diego Swings". Below is the ending of the article, but you may wish to read the entire thing, where it talks more about Lanzaratta (the retired swinging LEO). It's too long to post here. Anyway, here is the excerpt:

*****

Rich Hycer is a psychologist with a practice in Solana Beach. Since 1976, he has counseled hundreds of individuals and couples about relationships. He frowns on swinging just as he does on affairs, and says both can cause irreparable harm in a relationship.

“In most cases, it’s really an avoidance of dealing with the issues,” Hycer explains. “It’s much more important to look to ourselves and to what’s going on between us and our partner than look outside the marriage.”

He says people who are drawn to sex outside marriage, or outside a committed relationship, invariably are looking for a quick fix. “They may feel their marriage or relationship isn’t satisfying, but they don’t want to go through the problems of divorce,” he says. “It may temporarily make people feel good, but it doesn’t deal with the underlying issues that are going on in that marriage or relationship. It may be a short-term, ‘feel-good’ experience, but it doesn’t really solve issues and can become an avoidance.”

Lanzaratta agrees that swinging can be detrimental for couples whose relationships are in trouble. But for those involved in solid, mutually satisfying relationships, he maintains, “it’s just the opposite—it brings couples closer together and deepens their commitment. It’s not the way to fix a bad marriage; it’s a way to enhance a good marriage.”

What drives people to seek sex outside of marriage? Monogamy is unnatural, Lanzaratta says—which is why so many people have affairs, something he rails against.

He adds that, contrary to common thought, women are often the drivers behind a couple’s entry into “the lifestyle.”

“A lot of women would like maybe to have an experience with another woman, but they have no idea how to go about it in regular society,” Lanzaratta says. “This is one place they can find it. This is very acceptable here. It’s the covering up and the cheating that destroys a marriage, not the sex. This is something couples do together.”

[L,TOWM]

Yuck.

[KnutCase]

I second the motion.

[The Other Harry]

Juror #95 in the pool. A male who has a 7-week-old child and works as a certified public accountant. He believes the death penalty is a deterrent in certain cases and a legitimate means of punishment.

Assuming #95 is the foreman, my guess is that this may be helpful to DW. Here's why:

- The fact the he is the father of a seven week-old child will, imo, likely make him hostile to the van Dam parents. The "lifestyle" evidence was excluded, but we all know that he knows about it. He can't argue about it to the other juros, but it will loom large in the back of his mind. It will occur to him that one of the vD's party "guests" might have done the crime.

- As a CPA, he will likely be detail-oriented and very analytical. He will have noticed and thought about everything. He will give the prosection full points on the forensic evidence in the MH, but he will also notice and look at the pieces that are missing. He has auditing experience, and he's trained in sniffing-out things that either aren't there but should be, and things that have been misrepresented. He will be skeptical, independent, and stubborn in his point of view.

The one thing that bothers me about him is his age. He could be anywhere for mid-twenties to early-forties. If he is on the younger side of that -- which I'm guessing that he probably is -- he may not be able to relate well to DW. And, despite his CPA training, he may still be impressionable as to the prosecution's arguments. Bad things may not yet have come up in his own personal experience.

All-in-all, I'm willing to accept #95 as a good foreman. No matter what the outcome.

[KnutCase]

Great post. I was thinking along the same lines. There could be worse selection for foreman. Being a detail man is a plus factor in getting fair verdict.

[small_l_libertarian]

I agree with everything you just said. IMO, if he is the foreman, the other jurors (some of whom we know are older) would likely not have elected him foreman if he were very young. My guess would be mid-thirties (just guessing).

[KnutCase]

FOX News just had a three person panel discussing the case. Two said DW guilty. One said she expects acquittal. The one suggesting acquittal was the only one of the three making sense.

[L,TOWM]

I'll give some support to your theory.

I have a degree that says I am a trained accountant. I am firmly in the camp that believes that DW MIGHT be guilty, but I have some real problems with the prosecutions case. I do not believe they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would vote not guilty. With some reluctance, but I did'nt get enough from the DA to send a guy to jail for the rest of life or schedule him an appointment with the needle.

[JudyB1938]

Did you all see the new thread for today?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/732802/posts

[small_l_libertarian]

Maybe she only makes sense to us (meaning we're the crazy ones).