Westerfield Jury Reaches Verdict DEATH

o | Joe Hadenuf

[Joe Hadenuf]

Death

[Freedom2specul8]

It still sounds like they messed up. WOuldn't eastern standard time made it much sooner? I think it was around 11:45 they deadlocked.

[FreeTheHostages]

Not only will he be given a lifetime of appeals, his food (three-squares), lodging (relatively clean and temperature-controlled, transportation (chauffered), exercise (with state-purchased equipment), and health care (including chemotherapy and transplants, if needed) will be taken care of, which will probably give him a greater chance of surviving into senior citizenship than normal day-to-day life in the burbs.

This is the state system, not federal. In California, it's not a perfect life. State confinement ain't terribly cushy, actually. Personally, and here you're going to kill me, I don't care if prisoners are somehwat OK cared for. THAT I do believe is a sign of a civilized society. I support the death penalty. But I'm proud that American prisoners are treated better than the European prisoners, even though they whine about our death penalty as abusive. Confinement conditions aren't pleasant. They really aren't. I know some wish them worse, and well, I won't get all excited too much if they do get worse. But state confinement ain't a picnic, and I'm proud of that fact that it's not downright gruesome.

[cyncooper]

Like me, jdontom, your cable has reverted to tape delay broadcast on Court TV. My channel, too, says they're awaiting the verdict. They DID go live when the verdict was actually delivered. Hang in there and you'll get to see the tape of it.

[Richard Kimball]

That's cool. If you've worked as a prosecutor, you, like me, have seen way too much of what people will do to one another already. The only point I was trying to make to people who oppose the death penalty in all cases is that they need to be aware of what these guys do, and that what they consider mercy to a murderer may be a death sentence for someone else.

Take care.

[Valpal1]

Lost feed, or they're done. Do you know which it is?

[Freedom2specul8]

I'm still catching up..

"This one was medium strong, well outside the infield, in my book. But, more importantly, Kim debated fair and square and not the same can be said for the opposition in that thread"

Thank you for all of your kind words. :)

I thought this case was medium strong too...and thought it would have been made weaker if any of the evidence could have been explained...

[Amore]

Yes, I agree with you, and I agree with Richard Kimball about accomplice testimony -- very suspect. But really "accomplice testimony" has nothing to do with McDuff's case or the lesson his case provides -- as Richard Kimball has again tried to explain. His CONVICTIONS were never reversed, he was one of those let out by the U.S. Supreme Court's declaring of the death penalty as unconstitutional back around, as I recall, 1972. If McDuff had been put to death as the rabid animal he was, 8 more innocent people would not have died when he was let loose.

[Freedom2specul8]

I lost feed too. Am reloading it..I was thinking they were on commercial break.

[Freedom2specul8]

We are stuck with serial shows now. (for lack of a better description)

[Freedom2specul8]

back on

[Valpal1]

And you made your point well!

The DP is a deterrant to murder. The executed killer will never kill again. That cannot be said of those sentenced merely to LIP.

[The FRugitive]

How much blood was there on the jacket?

[Amore]

Apparently, no from what Pfingst or Dusek just said, sounds like gag order still in effect. I haven't read the appellate opinion yet. I've been gone, so I'm really not up on the case right now. You could have knocked me out with a feather when I saw the jury had aready reached a decision on the death penalty!

As for your question about what Judge Mudd can do, that's not an easy answer, and I don't feel qualified enough in Calif. law to comment.

[connectthedots]

Let me explain how this works in America. A jury decides. Then we respect the jury verdict. Surely, then, the jury trial is not the opening salvo in a discussion group where we decide it on Free Republic.

As I have said, I was not questioning the integrity or motives of the jurors. You also left out part of my sentence you quoted, which is here in its entirety, "I am confident that if DW is innocent, the evidence proving it will eventually be discovered." DW was declared to be guilty by a jury. I was simply allowing for the possibility that the jury may have been wrong, not that it was wrong. Juries have been wrong before.

As a matter of the way things work in our democracy, DW is guilty. He has the right to appeal. But there's no need to speak in the subjunctive regarding his innocence.

A jury did find DW to be guilty, and there will certainly be an appeal. My use of the word 'if' was required in order for the remainder of the statement to make any sense. Certainly there is no need for the cops to look for further evidence to prove DW is guilty. The prosecution already convinced a jury of his guilt.

I respect jury verdicts. They get it right more often, I'd bet, then judges or even us Freepers. I bit my tongue even at the OJ verdict.

I agree completely. I would put my faith in a jury rather than a judge; but I am allowing for the possibility that this jury simply got it wrong. I am the last person that needs convincing. I do have stories about corrupt judges I've dealt with, some of whom will be going to federal prison in the not too distant future. Don't even get me started on the OJ case.

I figure: this is America, this is my system, I can work to improve it or I guess if I didn't like it change it by constitutional amendment, but I'm not going to set myself outside it as some ultimate judge of guilty or innocence. That would be presumptuous and indeed seditious of me. The jury decides.

Again, I agree completely. DW was found to be guilty in a jury trial, so the people have done their duty. If the jury got it wrong, it is now the burden of the guilty person to prove his innocense; and not the burden of the people to reproce the charges. DW, if he is innocent, has serveral means available. Obtain a reversal or new trial on appeal, find some new evidence that defense could not have reasonably known about prior to or during the previous trial and thus be granted a new trial. If evidence is discovered later that absolutely eliminates the possibility that DW committed the crimes, the prosecutor could bring a motion to the judge for a dismissal with prejudice (not likely even if the exonerating evidence is absolute. Most prosecutors are not so honorable that they would admit to having convicted an innonect person), or clemency from the governor.

As I have said, DW was found guilty by a jury and the state met its burden of proof. The burden to prove the jury got it wrong shifts completely to the defense, and it is a very difficult burden at that. At least DW has a means to eventually be exonerated. If he and his supporters fail to meet the heavy burden of actually proving he was wrongly convicted, any doubt as to the correctness of the jury verdict must be entirely dismissed by any reasonable man. If he was mistakenly convicted, I just hope the exonerating facts come to light sooner rather than later.

[FreeTheHostages]

Life imprisonment without parole is also a deterrent to murder (except inside the prisons, and then, well, um, who cares).

I think the better argument for the death penalty is the since of closure and relief it gives many loved ones of the victims. And society as a whole in eggregious cases. People say that's just feeding the anger and revenge: I dunno, it's more like a comfort for those who are grieving, in my experience, more like that than revenge.

I recognize the existence of statistically sound arguments of racial bias in the death penalty's application. That's the argument against it.

I alternate years: some years I'm in favor of it, others not. It's a tough issue for me.

[FreeTheHostages]

Hmm, OK. I read your post carefully. Don't let the brevity of my response indicate to you otherwise, but as I read through it, my generally impression was, OK, Ok, you've got a point.

:::uploading one license to use the word "if"::::

~!

[cyncooper]

back on

Are you referring to Court TV? My CTV channel is now about to replay the verdict being read.

[fortheDeclaration]

Great news!

Ofcourse, he will die of old age in Californa before he will get executed.

It is to bad he wasn't in Texas.

[FreeTheHostages]

In short, I um, went off to the races too quickly with ConnectTheDot's use of "if."

I find that crow is a dish best enjoyed publicly.

[FreeTheHostages]

Next fundraising time, y'all must remind me how OFTEN I've been posting here at this website.

Sigh -- stuck at the office waiting for a work phone call, nothing better to do.