Westerfield Jury Reaches Verdict DEATH

o | Joe Hadenuf

[Joe Hadenuf]

Death

[Freedom2specul8]

"I suggest these nutballs who suggest he is some sort of martar check their papers this morning. Westerfield was minutes away from a plea bargain that including disclosing where he dumped this poor little girls body, when it was stumbled upon by that poor guy. "

I would at least like to hear their opinions...

[marajade]

I thought they were read back testimony?

[Valpal1]

Are you still contending DW is innocent? Or only that he was improperly convicted on insufficent evidence?

Because surely if there had been full disclosure, he still would have been convicted, only twice as fast.

But his gounds for appeal and overturning the conviction would have been greatly enhanced, guaranteed perhaps.

I truly do not get what your POV is.

[Freedom2specul8]

"I submit that this is the evidence that is as "explosive as a confession"."

I still think that feldman wasn't speaking about his client..but was speaking of a 3rd party. I simply cannot fathom why he wouldn't use that information. MOre than likely, the info didn't pan out...

[HamiltonJay]

What I do equate is the created worth of human life. Perhaps this is a factor you have not considered. I cannot prove this evidentally, but to borrow from your terminology, in her "swinging" lifestyle, how many of her OTHER children would you estimate that Brenda Van Dam deliberately had removed from their home in her womb by abortionist assault and butchery?

My goodness what a leap of abject obsurdity... number 1, you assume she has terminated pregnancies.. which you offer no evidence. Unlike various times in the past, birth control is widely available, so to assume that because she had sex, in particular in a manner you morally object to, that she committed abortions? What a gradios leap of non-existant logic. Secondly, you have and offer no evidence that Mrs. Van Dam is even still, or has been recently even biologically capable of bearing children or fertile.

You have made such unconfirmed and indefensible assumptions that your argument is about as solid as the shifting sands.

Now let me remind you, since you obviously do not know me or read the hundreds if not thousands of posts I have made here over the years... I am adamently opposed to abortion, at all levels, it is morally repugnant, indefensible and in my mind murder. And since you attack me in such a way as to assume that I am not, shows that you are a zealot, and a zealot of the worst kind. The very definition of Zealot is someone who does not know who their friends are.

What you and your lot seem to completely ignore is that what Westerfield did, is fact, he kidnapped, abused, tortured, murdered an innocent young girl, and then left her body to be nothing more than dog food.. LITERALLY. He showed no respect for her as a human being in life, nor in death.

Your leap of non logic, suggests that you believe because the Van Dam's were swingers, she must have gotten pregnant and terminated pregnancies... so therefor they are murderers too... but the fact you have not put forward is any evidence that Mrs. Van Dam was a habitual visitor to the abortion clinic. Birth control is out there, infertility and sterilization are as well.. you cannot morally equate a couples morals regarding their consentual adult sex life with what Westerfield did, there is no way to do that.

[bvw]

You have to look at the totality as well as the inidividual pieces. But do so under a standard of presumed innocence, a standard that says guilt must be demonstrated beyong any reasonable doubt.

In this case there is reasonable doubt that murder occurred, period. A body was found and there was no direct evidence of murder.

The possibility reamins -- it continues to be a *reasonable* possibility -- that the DNA material on the jacket and MH, and the hairs, and the palm print, arrived there by Danielle playing in the MH or house at some time the prior months. The MH was accessible to do so, it was in proximity to Danielle's everyday travels. Danielle had visited the home, her mother had danced with Westerfield "up close".

You've brought up some things that are not facts. I'm not going to point out which -- they have been discussed and dismissed many times before. I'll repeat only that Westerfield's conviction is founded on presumption of guilt.

[bvw]

Some portions were read back. Still not a transcript -- the eyes read differently than the ears hear.

[Freedom2specul8]

How bout another look-see

http://www.uniontrib.com/news/metro/danielle/20020506-9999_1m6westerfieldpapers.html

Other motions remained sealed on the judge's orders. The sealed motions discuss other potential evidence in the case, including evidence that Westerfield's lawyers label in court documents as "nearly as explosive as a confession." The lawyers didn't specify the nature of this evidence.

Westerfield's lawyers want to keep these sealed motions secret from the public through Westerfield's trial and until all his post-trial appeals are exhausted if he's convicted, according to documents made public today.

The documents unsealed today contain some information that hadn't yet become public in the case. Among other things, prosecutors say Danielle's hair was found inside Westerfield's motor home.

[Diamond]

Brenda is as bad as the murderer of her child because she engaged in extra-marital sex and we all know those types have abortions IF they get pregnant?

A large number do. At present I consider my opinion a reasonable, defeasible supposition. I will heed your correction, though. It is not really not a betting matter, and at a future certain everything that is now hidden will be revealed.

Cordially,

[marajade]

"Some portions were read back. Still not a transcript -- the eyes read differently than the ears hear."

That is the most absurd statement I have ever read or heard...

There is no technical difference between the two...

[Freedom2specul8]

I respectfully disagree with ya bvw...the people who think he's innocent are the ones who don't agree with the evidence. Take the blood on the jacket for example. Some say it wasn't blood..if the dna was from something other than "blood"...it would have tested negative, see? The dna matched. The only way it could have tested a false positive is if it was from a potato or horseradish. That theory was negated by the fact that the DNA was there. SO...it wasn't spit, it wasn't snot, it was blood.

---

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-152281920020620-130651.html
Three stains tested positive for the presumptive presence of blood, the criminalist testified. They were on the front right middle, the front right shoulder and the neck portion of the jacket, he said.

---

The Kastle-Meyer Color Test uses a solution of phenolphthalein and hydrogen peroxide on a piece of filter paper, and when blood of any quantity is present, it turns pink. However, it also turns pink in the presence of potatoes or horseradish, so care must be taken at the scene.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/serology/3.htm

[bvw]

I think Westerfield was improperly convicted on insufficent evidence. Had there been full diclosure, would he have been convcted twice as fast? That I don't know -- it's "what-if" speculation. You think he would have been -- but I would counter that with full disclosure the media barrage would be lessened, not strengthed, on the general princible that rumors grow larger than facts. With full disclosure, the defense could counter the rumors -- which some of the Jury may have picked up on directly, and certainly -- by media indirect feedback -- all were swayed by.

[Freedom2specul8]

Unless he lured her with french fries and she drooled on his jacket. ???

[FreeTheHostages]

You're concerned with the consistency of moral outrage. I'm concerned with the law.

The rest is a matter for religion, and when we all get to Heaven we'll learn the Truth.

[bvw]

In your schools they save on textbooks, I do suppose, for the lecture provides all that needs be known and remembered.

[marajade]

The court sees no technical difference between the two... What are you going on about about textbooks in school and how does it relate to this discussion?

[Valpal1]

Your claim or presumption that the jury was swayed by the media implies that you believe they lied in voir dire and that they then disobeyed the judge and sought out media on the trial in order to be swayed by it.

You are entitled to your presumption, but I have more faith that this jury was truthful and conciencious in their deliberations.

I do not think the evidence was inadequate, I think the refutation of it was inadequate, thus he was properly found guilty.

[marajade]

"Your claim or presumption that the jury was swayed by the media implies that you believe they lied in voir dire and that they then disobeyed the judge and sought out media on the trial in order to be swayed by it."

If this is true, Westerfield will get out on appeal for sure... Wouldn't that be a travesty since we now know that he nearly plead guilty just so he wouldn't get death...

[Diamond]

And since you attack me in such a way as to assume that I am not

I did not attack you. I basically asked you to observe parallels of types of butchery of innocents. I also told you right up front that I had no evidentiary proof of my supposition. It's a wild guess.

what Westerfield did, is fact, he kidnapped, abused, tortured, murdered an innocent young girl, and then left her body to be nothing more than dog food.. LITERALLY. He showed no respect for her as a human being in life, nor in death

On this, as my posts on this thread show, we are in complete agreement.

...because she had sex, in particular in a manner you morally object to

Fornication and adultery are not morally wrong simply because of my disapproval.

you cannot morally equate a couples morals regarding their consentual adult sex life with what Westerfield did, there is no way to do that.

The Bible, for example, does just that, doesn't it?

[HamiltonJay]

I would at least like to hear their opinions...

Kim,

Unfortunately their oppinions are just that, verbalization of their feelings, not based on anything other than their need to fit the fact that to their moral viewpoint the Van Dams are evil or sinners... so whatever twists or denials of fact must happen to blame them instead of the sick sadist who did this, will be latched onto with ferver. Westerfield himself could have stood up and confessed and these yokels would still be claiming he didn't do it, and it really is just because the Van Dams were pot smoking swingers... that is truly the only reason these people continue their abject denial.

Got their moral viewpoint of the world, damn the facts we'll fit reality into it... nothing more than that. Their simplified world view is essentially this : Bad things happen to bad people.... Van Dams are pot smokers and swingers.. therefore they are bad thing, and their daughter was murdered... bad thing.. therefor its their fault... Westerfield, does not look evil... so he must not be evil.

They will continue to hammer the round peg into the square hole come hell or high water, no matter what anyone or anything says or does. I personally think a lot of them need to go read the book of Job a few more times, because there are many lessons in that book that I think this group hasn't learned or figured out.