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

KGTV ^ | August 13, 2002 | KGTV

[Politicalmom]

That mature? My eight year old son knows better than that.

[JudyB1938]

LOL Did you check her profile? She really is 15 years old. :0)

[NatureGirl]

Convict the bastard, already!

Tsk tsk. Such language from a fifteen year old!! Maybe you should go play with your horsey, and let the adults talk.

Or, you could go spend several days reading transcripts and looking over evidence then get back to us, mmmmmkay?

By the way, your TV lies to you.

[small_l_libertarian]

You believe the porn was his, even though the computer expert (Lawson) proved that Neal was the one surfing the web and checking his email at the time that much of the porn was downloaded, much of the porn was found on Neal's computer, some of the porn was anime/hentai (which Neal is a big fan of), and some of the porn was surfed while DW was at the police station with the police?

Sorry, I can't make that leap. Not trying to be combative, but don't know how you could come to that conclusion.

[bvw]

That's what the profile says. But that's just a profile -- not tree rings, ya know.

[pinz-n-needlez]

Tee hee. But I forgot, "Then I went...?" "And he was like....?"

We ought to start writing the script for the Freeper Made-for-TV version of this tale.

Fres can do the still shots. lol

[Krodg]

How much time would he get for the porn, if he was convicted?

[KnutCase]

Looking at adult porn is not a crime. Downloading child porn is. However, remember that Feldman challenged the jury to look at ALL images of what prosection called child porn. In fact, police expert would not call it child porn, only that it borders on child porn. In other words, not proven to be child porn, therefor no crime here regarding computer images? Hmmm.

[John Jamieson]

Someday, she'll be called to jury duty and be required to make a logical determination of someone's guilt. For now she can just rant.

[VRWC_minion]

Bright kid.

[John Jamieson]

200 hours community service, working with kids probably.

[NatureGirl]

I have no trouble with him being convicted of that charge

If the porn was indeed LIVE ACTION underage porn, then yes, I too believe he should get a guilty. I understand that it was most likely Neal's, but if the law says he's responsible for what's going on under his roof, then the law should be followed.

If the porn was of girls of "questionable" age (eg 18, but looks younger), or were hentai (animated, not live), then the porn charges should be dropped.

Someone here suggested that the porn charges had to be tied in with the kidnap/murder in order to supply motive. I think they should have been tried on their own, if at all.

[Krodg]

Actually, I was wondering if by the time appeals were done, whether he would have already served his time.

[small_l_libertarian]

Actually, the law says that he has to "knowingly possess" child porn for it to be a crime. So, no, the law doesn't say that he is responsible for everything that happens under his roof.

[John Jamieson]

Even CTV said the prosecution didn't care about the porn charges; THEY HAD SERVED THEIR PURPOSE!

[JudyB1938]

He'll probably die of a heart attack while incarcerated if this goes to appeal. The reason I say that is because he's overweight and has been a drinker. Plus all of this stress, if on an innocent man, would be enough to make anybody drop dead!

[John Jamieson]

Could be anything from nothing, to one year I think.

[the-gooroo]

Just to be clear, when Brenda said she didn't remember any "further contact" she was referring to the first night at Dad's, Jan. 25th. That was one week before Danielle disappeared. Your point is still valid, a perfect example of selective memory.

[CedarDave]

Thank you so much for the detailed answer. Now, I have to return back to work before the boss man comes in and looks over my shoulder!