Westerfield Jury Reaches Verdict DEATH

o | Joe Hadenuf

[Joe Hadenuf]

Death

[FreeTheHostages]

Good for Jeffrey!

[Valpal1]

Depending on the state, Life w/o Parole does not in fact always mean Life in Prison until they die and leave feet first.

And lifers in a state w/o the DP, pretty much have a license to kill other inmates and guards. Another murder trial is just a field trip and a welcome break from the monotony of prison.

[FreeTheHostages]

?? Well, even if she did flame you, I'm just saying posting from her home page and attacking her personally isn't persuasive. I mean, it's not a persuasive flame. Responding to her substantively would be more persuasive.

I'm not even sure if we're on the same side or not on this issue, I'm just saying, if you're interested, I didn't find your flame persuasive.

[FreeTheHostages]

True.

[Palladin]

That's tough, honey. I'm not here to persuade you.

[Freedom2specul8]

http://www.kfmb.com/topstory11084.html
Later, at debriefings with the media, a subdued Feldman said that just as he wouldn't try the case in the streets, he "also (won't) try the appeal in the streets of San Diego."

Feldman said he respects the jury's sentencing recommendation, but that America is "alienating itself" in the international community by imposing the death penalty in capital cases.

District Attorney Paul Pfingst said that jurors made the right guilt decision based on the evidence and were right to have recommended death.

"Today (Monday), justice was done for Danielle van Dam. Justice was done for her family. The jury who heard this case reached the correct guilt verdict, based on the evidence they had before them," Pfingst said.

"I believe that this case was fairly tried. I'm extraordinarily proud of prosecutors, investigators and support staff in my office, who made this case come together on what was a very short period of time for such a complex matter."

[FreeTheHostages]

Good, sweetie. Because putting things in bold doesn't work for me and most graduates of elementary school.

Cordially,
FTH

[Ditter]

Exactly Joe! If I am ever accused of a crime I didn't committ I would be screaming at the top of my lungs that I was innocent. Even today as I watched DW while the judge was reading the verdict he sat stone faced. I would be screaming & crying & professing my innocence.

[FreeTheHostages]

Feldman did a very good job. There's no doubt he did. Expect to see him do a vigorous appeal.

As a technical matter, he's a fine, fine attorney from what I saw.

[PGalt]

First of all, I respect your opinion of what you might do if you were accused of a crime. If I was guilty of a crime, I would do the time or pay the fine. If I was innocent of a crime, I would not hire an attorney. I do not need an attorney to convince a jury of my innocence or find the flaw in the prosecutors argument.

[UCANSEE2]

Hey, I noticed you can't seem to do anything but make personal attacks on people, and spout the same old tripe over and over. It seems you don't have the slighest clue what a fair trial is about. You also admitted you don't really know anything about the trial. You just come here to spew hate about what you see is a child molestor.

You want to kill DW yourself, don't you?

connectthedot's posted the information on his profile, and has discussed this at length on the threads.

He is being honest and open about it. Even at the risk of exposure. Were he to keep this from 'us', I would say he could be accused of having an agenda.

You are the one that seems to have an agenda. A bloodlust for DW. WHY? Where you there and saw him do it?

[FreeTheHostages]

See, I don't know about that. You'd be in shock. You'd feel sucker-punched. You would have been through this whole beaten-down process. DW's guilty, don't get me wrong. But I'm not sure, if I was in a Kafka-like prosecution of the innocent, that I'd be gasping for breath.

[Freedom2specul8]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/deathverdict_ctv.html

Two jurors interviewed afterward declined to answer questions about the turnabout, but one female panelist identified only as Juror #1 appeared to become physically ill at the reading of the verdict. About four minutes after the announcement, the juror, a county welfare department employee in her 30s, raised her hand and asked to leave the courtroom for a few moments. When she returned, she clutched a brown paper bag as if she might vomit. Defense lawyers asked that she be repolled to see if she was sure of her vote, but Judge Mudd declined to do so.

snip

The two jurors, the foreman and Juror #6, who spoke after the verdict Monday, said the forensic evidence persuaded them of Westerfield's guilt. Asked what the most convincing piece of evidence was, both men replied, "The blood."

"The blood on his jacket," said Juror #6, who identified himself only as Jeffrey, of a streak of Danielle's blood on Westerfield's sports jacket. "How did that get there?"

snip

Both jurors said they found the way Danielle died much more compelling than any of the positive aspects of Westerfield's life and were moved by them to vote for death.

"For me, I put a lot of weight into the crime itself — the circumstances of the crime and what happened directly afterward," said the foreman.

For the entire panel though, "It was a struggle coming to the meeting of the minds," he said.

"Each person had to come to peace with that decision," said the foreman. He said that even for people, like himself, who supported the death penalty, "Everybody had to go through that step of, 'Holy cow, this is real.'"

Seated before a gallery of news reporters, both men said they had not found it difficult to avoid media coverage of the case.

"I watched a lot of movies," joked Jeffrey.

[ladyinred]

REASONABLE DOUBT was abundant in this trial. It's a sad day.

Certainly not in the minds of the jury thank God. I am amazed so many here fell for the defense smoke and mirrors, don't expect that around here, but you are entitled to your opinion. Just glad it wasn't the juries.

[UCANSEE2]

Wow, that's pretty mean, posting all that stuff from her home page and going personal like that. Hmmm. You don't persuade me of anything doing that.

That's just Palladin's normal tactic. He always makes personal attacks when he really has no substance for debating the issues.

He has run off posters on the ELIZABETH SMART threads and the posters over there want him GONE!

[FreeTheHostages]

Um, don't involve me in this. Your post is pretty ad hominem too. I'm honestly just sitting here trying to figure out a way for you both to lose the argument. Hee hee.

Check out this thread: no one wants to get all angry tonight. We're just chatting. Have a beer.

[connectthedots]

I would think that this bitter person has a beef against our judicial system in general. Anti-jury; anti-judge; anti-justice. Can we say AGENDA?

To the contrary, I such a high regard for our judicial system that I will not tolerate racketeers who operate them as criminal enterprises in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. The problem is not the system, it's a great system.

I even had a meeting with the CJ of the Washington State SC five weeks ago during which he admitted that I was denied my constitution right under the WA Constitution for a hearing two years ago on a petition for a writ of mandamus against a state superior court judge. The reason they intentionally violated Title 18 USC 241/242 is because if I had not been denied he hearing I was entitled to as a matter of law, the WA SC would have been forced to grant the petition and the $1.2 million judgement to which I was entitled to as a matter of law. Once that had been entered, a lot of public officials would have an impossible time explaining the circumstances to the public and judges and others would have been going to jail. Their only hope was simply to deny the hearing and do nothing, hoping that I eventually would just go away. That was a big mistake on their part. I have never seen a grown man look so disheartened in all my life, especially after I told him that I was going to put him in prison if it was the last thing I ever did. He then accused me of making a threat, which was true, but it was a 'legal threat'. His response was silence.

BTW, CTD is a he.

[It's me]

Easy, you can walk into and out of a residence without leaving any evidence. The defense bug experts were wrong. She never played in his motorhome. Case closed. Verdict: DEATH.....

How do you explain the unidentified fingerprints on the wall next to Danielle's room, the stairway and on the sliding glass doors? According to testimony, they were not Westerfield's.

[dread78645]

"The motorhome had been parked at his residence approx one year before the home owners assn made him move it."

That's not true anyway...

Kimmy, If Dave Westerfield had the motorhome for less than a year, how did Susan Lelek's daughter (Danielle L.) get her fingerprints on the window, other than from the last time they went camping --some 14 months ago ?

And, IIRC, there is a receipt entered in evidence showing DAW purchased the vehicle in summer of 2000 ...

[Freedom2specul8]

Did Feldman really do a good job? I have to wonder..he planted all these ideas, but nothing to back it up. For example, the jurors were left scratching their heads wrt:the swinging issue..(so they say)