So you are saying, DW was found guilty because Feldman signaled (emotionaly) to the jury that DW was guilty.
Would it be better for Feldman *not* to have signaled (emotionaly) & succesfully gotten a guilty man off, so that he could continue murdering little girls?
I am leaving your hypothetical mutterings out of this.
In this actual Westerfield case I think the Jury should have heard it all -- the K&O interview tapes, all the rumors in float, etc., the lawyers should have their run to raise questions and alternatives, there should have been no pre-quel plea bargaining phase and no "sentencing phase". I also think the trial should have been heard one or two counties away from SD to better get an impartial jury.
But that's perfectionist fantasy. In the real world, did Feldman "signal"? I don't know, and I don't know that Westerfield is guilty or not either.
That's why I asked for a hypothetical answer. Is it okay to say a man is guilty of a capital crime -- or any crime -- based on intuition and feeling? Or should some mininal logic and reason be necessary as well? How many trials are like Westerfield's & OJ's -- emotional, emotional, emotional, and how many like Captain Preston's or William Penn's, where emotional force was used to bring home logic and reason out of the current common wisdom and mob feelings, and Jury's acted and were taken far more seriously?