Westerfield Jury Reaches Verdict DEATH

o | Joe Hadenuf

[Joe Hadenuf]

Death

[the Deejay]

This charade of a trial was the most BIASED one I've ever seen in following over 200 trials. The BIAS from the onset is what sent me into overdrive.

I just saw the taped interview with jurors 10 & 6. Such immaturity I've not seen in a long time. They had to look at each other before answering a question!! (Shows they aren't free thinkers.) And some of their answers about the expert witnesses, appears to be grounds for immediate appeal, i.e., they didn't place credence on the "hired guns." (Did they mean they didn't discuss their testimony as part of deliberations?) And then they said, they "viewed all the evidence." How disgusting. Just when I didn't think things in this trial could get more disgusting.

AND.....They were calling the DNA on the jacket BLOOD! IT WASN'T BLOOD!!! BTW, the 2 jurors stated they "didn't bother to fill in any of the gaps." YIKES!!! (Help me, Lord.)

[EllaMinnow]

Thanks!
It's still a tie.

[Greg Weston]

>>>And there have been some spectacular blunders lately.<<<

Yes that is why I sort of lean against the DP. I certainly think some people deserve it (like Westerfield), but once you execute someone there is no correcting a mistake or deliberate misconduct by police or prosecutors.

[Amore]

Yes, DW gets to speak. Not sure if the VD's do, since they already did at the sentencing hearing.

[Freedom2specul8]

Yes it's boring, but annoying sometimes too. :-]

I've just seen 2 of the jurors, males who looked like they were young. The tape of them was played on larry king live and o'reilly. (I think cyncooper said earlier that she heared them on the radio as well)

They were swayed by the evidence presented to them from what I could tell, and one gave the example of the blood on the jackat as compelling.

[Greg Weston]

Oh please....

[AppyPappy]

Why would he get on the stand? Lawyers always advise their client not to testify.

To keep from getting the chair?

[carenot]

Westerfield didn't do this, because he is guilty!

I disagree with you.

[EllaMinnow]

Finally, the jury's opinion of the bug guys:

"And Faulkner's testimony only gave mid-February as the latest date when Danielle's body could have been exposed to insects, not the earliest, Tony said."

[marajade]

they had DNA evidence in this case, where would the mistake be? In keeping him in prison for the rest of his life rather than giving him the needle?

[Freedom2specul8]

"And Faulkner's testimony only gave mid-February as the latest date when Danielle's body could have been exposed to insects, not the earliest, Tony said." "

Golly...that's been said here numerous times. Glad the jury paid attention. Was that on LKL? I got interrupted.

[sinkspur]

Whether the prosecutor stated the law correctly, or not, the U.S. Constitution is quite clear that a defendant not testifying in a criminal case cannot be a consideration in reaching a verdict.

Looking back, I'm not really sure if this was a criminal or civil case. The county was trying to send this three-time DWI case to jail for a year. I was the foreman, and we spent 15 minutes in deliberation because the arresting officer's car video showed the erratic driving of the defendant; he was convicted on that alone.

The prosecutor was very clear that we could take his unwillingness to testify into consideration; his defense attorney did not object. We never brought it up in deliberations.

Once we returned the guilty verdict, we were instructed to leave the courtroom. The perp worked out a plea bargain; he spent 90 days in jail and is on probation for five years. If he's tagged for DWI during that five years, he goes to jail for two years.

[ican'tbelieveit]

[BunnySlippers]

I just saw the taped interview with jurors 10 & 6. Such immaturity I've not seen in a long time. They had to look at each other before answering a question!! (Shows they aren't free thinkers.)

Seemed that they were communicating quite well ... letting the other finish before the other spoke. In fact this just indicated that they were not divided during the "guilt phase" of the trial (I don't know how they were during the "penalty phase"

They seemed very cohesive.

[carenot]

B.S. The whole thing was reposted here. It was neither pro nor anti Westerfield. It was merely a duplicate thread.

I know that.

I made the comment because he seemed to be glad that what he thought was a pro Westerfield thread had been pulled.

[ican'tbelieveit]

sorry, too small before, much better now.

[Freedom2specul8]

I've heard that the bonds that develop amongst jury members during trials like this can last a lifetime.

[BunnySlippers]

Thanks. that's so cute. Another Freeper posted that to me a couple of years ago. :-D

[carenot]

if he were innocent, he would have came forward and told the world this.

OJ testified and got off.

I reckon you are right.

[Greg Weston]

There is no mistake in this case IMO. However there have been mistakes in other cases where DNA etc has set people free. These people would probably have been executed. Once they are gone you can't correct the mistake or expose the misconduct to bring them back. That's why I generally lean against capital punishment.