Jurors To Hear Recorded Westerfield Tapes: Mudd Still Wrestling With Media! (VERDICT WATCH-Aug.14th)

Union Trib ^ | August 14, 2002 | San Diego Staff

[connectthedots]

I simply stated that Congressman Billybob may not have followed the trial all that closely; nothing more. I have also stated on more than a few occasions that DW may have murdered Danielle. I just happen to think that there are too many holes in the prosecution's case to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard.

[JudyB1938]

I'll bet she figured it out on her own. DJ is a pretty smart cookie!

[the Deejay]

Do you mean reading into what the jury has been requesting?
If so, I did it on my own.

I took all the things the jury has asked for, so far, and
went back to Feldman's closing arguments.

[the Deejay]

Can't recall if one of LE's said he didn't consider
them as porn. I do recall one of the 'puter experts
agreed with Feldman on the Danielle L. photo as well
as the so-called child animine/cartoons.

[UCANSEE2]

Sometimes people just say stupid things for no apparent reason. I would not infer anything more than that. I have certainly done it before.

Nah, ah... ah.... NOT ME..... I never have said anything stupid for no apparent reason. Ahh..... I... Ah...

Had to put this in the golden comments. Great statement.

[carenot]

My understanding is that the empirical stuff is pretty convincing in this case.

em·pir·i·cal Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl) adj. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

I had to look that up. I respectfully disagree.

[bvw]

Well, thank you!

[the Deejay]

Well, you're most welcome!

[bvw]

A day of wonders! The reserves have arrived!

[Rheo]

That was Detective Armstrong who stated that there was no pre pubescent porn.

It appeared as tho Feldman was calling him to the stand or Dusek referenced him doing so but it never happened.

[KnutCase]

Yes, yes, yes. It would appear that they may have paid more attention to him in closing than Dusek. Could be a good sign for DW.

[MizSterious]

"First, very little decay.

Second, any idea how many times the air is exchanged in motor home that clocks 500+ miles ? Wouldn't thoe conditions be slightly different than a closed building ?"

Minion, try to read the article, ok? If you read it, you'll note that first of all they used very small samples. Secondly, the scent remained even after the articles had been removed. Thirdly, the motorhome was probably closed during the trip. This is a luxury motorhome, not a beat up 1957 land yacht with no heat or air conditioning. Fourthly, blood decays just like any other material. There was also hair. Both of these substances were used in the tests. In Dusek's (ludicrous) theory, the child had been in there a mere 72 hours prior at the earliest. If she had been in that motor home, the dogs would have alerted their handlers.

How do you suppose they manage to use dogs to track people in the out of doors, Minion? Sometimes these dogs can track people days and even weeks later. How much air circulates in the great out of doors, Minion? Your arguments lack the substance of logic. Think about it.

[the Deejay]

"I'll bet she figured it out on her own. DJ is a pretty smart cookie!"

Thank you kind lady! I was just killing time & thought I'd do some research and try reading into the juror's minds, with the requests so far. It appears they are concentrating on Feldman's pleadings. (Well, it reads that way to me.)

[UCANSEE2]

My understanding is that the empirical stuff is pretty convincing in this case.

Sometimes people admit they know very little about this case, other than what CTV or a 12 minute blurb on the news tells them. Sometimes they want to give their opinion, (and have the right to) even though they are totally uninformed.

Sometimes you can tell from their WORDS they are uninformed.

MY UNDERSTANDING is one of the biggest KEYWORDS in use, meaning I DON'T KNOW A DARN THING ABOUT THIS except for something I read or heard somewhere in the media that TOLD ME HE WAS GUILTY. (obey, obey, obey, now sleep, sleep, good little sheeple)

[Yeti]

In all fairness to Congressman Billybob, he is a very busy man and likely has not followed the case nearly as closely as many who post on these threads. That said, one ought to be very careful to rush to discount his opinion about this case.

He is a very intelligent and smart lawyer who is widely known and respected throughout the legal community.

So what. He said what he said, and I know what I know. He has called for a man's death. He demonstrated his COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF THE CASE IN HIS POST.

There is considerably more solid evidence that he is a lynchmob @sshole than there is that Westerfield is a murderer.

The fact that he is a well-connected crook lawyer has nothing to do with his arrogant assignment of an innocent man to death row.

I RECOMMEND THAT NOBODY CLICK A LINK HE POSTS. The jerk just wants 0.1 cents from a banner ad impression, and publicity for his show.

I'll certainly make it a point to remind him of his remarks when the hysteria dies down and the facts of this case finally penetrate the wall of hysteria and disinformation created by the media.

[JudyB1938]

You need to add your own words there to the list! Excellent definition.

[Freedom2specul8]

I was sent this via freepmail by someone who has no desire to post on the threads anymore. I volunteered to post this for him/her.

"One more thing. They are misreading the jury requests for info. ...The porn requests were last Friday morning. Porn first, then the pics of Danielle L.
Then Monday afternoon they requested the audio of the Redden interview, then Tuesday morning the transcripts. My thinking is the porn is done and they're working on the kidnap/murder---not the other way around! "

[JudyB1938]

Bookmark me when you do. That should be a very interesting give and take. I don't know why I am hung up on this. Like I said, I guess it's because I am so surprised that someone of his intellect would make such a statement!!!

[UCANSEE2]

Your arguments lack the substance of logic. Think about it.

A contradiction in probability of argument. If cannot do #1, cannot do #2.