Skip to comments.
Westerfield Jury Reaches Verdict DEATH
o
| Joe Hadenuf
Posted on 09/16/2002 1:46:27 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
Death
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 701-704 next last
To: BunnySlippers
Really? Thanks..
I want to know what they think about the mummified skin and if it had anything to do with their decision.
To: Palladin
Hey, you coward, pukes like you are part of the reason there are so many freaks out there killing and raping little girls and boys. You are part of the problem, man--you and those bleeding heart fake nuns.Spoken like a true member of the mob. No brains, no honest passion, just a member of the sheeple being lead down the primrose path. If the media had decided that this man was innocent you would be raving at the injustice of this verdict.
Don't bother replying, you have nothing new to bring to the discussion.
To: Palladin
Hey, you coward, pukes like you are part of the reason there are so many freaks out there killing and raping little girls and boys. You are part of the problem, man--you and those bleeding heart fake nuns.I want the one that killed that little girl to die a horrible death.
The evidence didn't show he did it.
263
posted on
09/16/2002 5:12:16 PM PDT
by
carenot
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I MISSED SOMETHING..reports just said "something" just put it over the top for the jurors.Did you hear it?I missed it too. I did not know Fox got a hold of some jurors, too.
To: connectthedots
Thanks, ctd. That is good to hear!
To: cyncooper
It looked like the 2 male jurors were being interviewed by teh media as a group and this film was a result of it. O'reilly was speaking to a reporter who was there for "fox" ...
To: BunnySlippers
I think the jury did a great job and I'm glad they took their time in evaluating the evidence. I absolutely agree.
To: cyncooper
I say that cuz it looked like it was in the courtroom, and judge mudd allowed an extra camera in for interviewing purposes.
To: ican'tbelieveit
God, I know I swore I would never post to this cretin again, but I am going to do it, please forgive me. KIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell the truth. We don't post here anymore because of you. No. You stopped posting because none of you could bear to hear anyone say that Westerfield was guilty. The Westfield is innocent crowd was a bunch of disruptors would could not carry on a debate without insulting people (I noticed your use of the word "cretins").
So many people were driven from this forum by that crowd. I'm glad that, for the most part, they are gone.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I see, he was playing the video from the interviews I heard earlier. Ach! Trying to watch tv, listen to radio and read at the same time means I'm missing too much.
Thanks for the headsup. I see O'Reilly moved on to topic B.
To: carenot
Listen, if you were completely innocent in this brutal crime, would you just sit there during this entire trial and not say a word? While people were pointing at you saying you murdered a little innocent girl?
I can assure you, if I were on trial, I would demand to be heard, I would demand to testify on my own behalf, regardless of what my attorney said.
A normal, innocent person would have demanded to be heard and told the world, in their own words, I am innocent, I didn't do this, I wouldn't do this, I am not a monster, and I am telling the world, right here, right now, I am innocent of this monsterous, brutal crime.
Westerfield didn't do this, because he is guilty!
To: Palladin
Kudos to the moderators. They pulled the pro-Westerfield thread.Ah yes, squelch all voices of dissent!
272
posted on
09/16/2002 5:22:15 PM PDT
by
carenot
To: BunnySlippers
I had heard it slightly differently ... that the jury felt (my emphasis) that ALL of the bug guys were hired guns (not just Faulkner). "Felt"? This sort of comment, if true, is scary. Of course they were all hired guns. Two of them hired by the prosecutor and two hired by the defense, and all four pretty much agreed that the body was deposited well after DW was under constant watch. I will concede that the last prosecution bug guy stretched the possible date enough to cover the prosecution's theory, and then some, but he pretty much wilted under cross-examination.
For what it is worth, all the cops, detectives, other experts and other public employees who testified were also "hired guns".
Hired, or not, the jury is required to accept as true all the uncontroverted factual testimony of experts. That's why they call it expert testimony. If their testimony was not sufficient to be relied upon in the trial, they would not have been allowed to testify in the first place. Even Dusek declined to question the qualifications of any of the experts.
To: carenot
B.S. The whole thing was reposted here. It was neither pro nor anti Westerfield. It was merely a duplicate thread.
274
posted on
09/16/2002 5:25:24 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
Comment #275 Removed by Moderator
To: Joe Hadenuf
A normal, innocent person would have demanded to be heard and told the world, in their own words, I am innocent, I didn't do this, I wouldn't do this, I am not a monster, and I am telling the world, right here, right now, I am innocent of this monsterous, brutal crime. Westerfield didn't do this, because he is guilty!
So it is your opinion if a defendant does not testify in his own defense, that is evidence of guilt?
To: Valpal1
B.S. The whole thing was reposted here. It was neither pro nor anti Westerfield. It was merely a duplicate thread. Was it a "Squeaky-fest" which should settle whether it was truly a pro-DW thread? :)
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~; cyncooper; BunnySlippers; redlipstick
Hang down your head, Tom Dooley.
Hang down your head and cry.
Hang down your head, Tom Dooley,
Poor boy, you're going to die.
I do wonder if the Van Damm and Runnion murders will have an effect on the handling of DP cases and appeals. Will the public start demanding swifter and more frequent executions in CA.
278
posted on
09/16/2002 5:30:57 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: connectthedots
So it is your opinion if a defendant does not testify in his own defense, that is evidence of guilt? I was on a jury last year in a DWI case, and the prosecution said that the defendant not taking the stand could be taken into consideration by the jury.
A man on trial for his life doesn't take the stand to defend himself?
To: BunnySlippers
Not at all, the whole thing was reposted at Post 65 of this thread and I bet quite a few skimmed over it without realizing it was the deleted thread, which was quite short.
This is just more moderater bashing.
280
posted on
09/16/2002 5:35:54 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 701-704 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson