Posted on 01/08/2003 9:24:19 AM PST by TomB
(am I listening to a tape of my opinion that an exam was administered or the fact that an exam was administered?)
Anyone have this info?
I believe they CUT OUT the areas that were stained, leaving NOTHING else to test. This is a part of the testimony.
As far as Feldman, I know nothing else about the man or his history, besides this trial. I feel unqualified to make any judgment of his conduct of the trial myself. During the trial, I did get involved in making judgments about both lawyers, and neither I nor most of the posters who did the same, had any right.
As I stated, the questions raised about why Feldman did or did not do certain things that most people experience as normally being done in a trial, make me question whether or not he was bought. That in no way proves he was.
Someone who is a personal /business acquaintence of Feldman would have more to offer on his professionalism and trust.
The fact that Mudd didn't sequester the jury after being asked by the jurors themselves makes one question his motives too. Was he controlled,bought, whatever to ensure the outcome of the trial? Makes one wonder.
As to the rush to trial, duh, that was a defense tactic to hamstring prosecutions ability to test the evidence he knew was condemnatory to his client.
You are assuming this yourself. You have no proof, do you? There were many thoughts on why they went to trial so early, including the fact that DW wanted it done that way, not Feldman, so he could see what he could save of his life, after being accused.
See, you and Cyncooper, and sometimes Redlipstick, and many others repeat this same thing. You explain your view or opinion of why something happened, but you state it as a fact. Others read this and assume it is. That is why so many times you are asked to back it up with proof. Can you provide proof that This is why they went to trial early?
On the tapes, officers remark that there "was a 100 percent probability of deception" What officers, and based on what? I can not see the actual results myself, so I have nothing I can base this on. The PERSON doing the test is the one that sees the graphs of all the pertinent data and makes the determination.
I have been listening to the RR show, and did miss some parts of it. I would love to have someone fill me in. Someone objective.
I have not heard anyone state, so far, that particular sentence. Did I miss it? Or is this just conjecture or unidentified source again?
Some of your comments relating to the Polygraph though........ how should I say it.
Girls, your petticoats are showing.
This will be my last post to you.
It wasn't allowed in court because polygraph examinations are not allowed in court, and any reference or implication that a polygraph was administered is not allowed in court. That is why it was not allowed in court.
The officers inform DW that he failed the polygraph and KFMB played a segment of it at the top of the hour.
redlipstick posted yet another article, which I was posting an excerpt (obviously) from in which it details Westerfield's reaction to this news. Read the article if you care to--and understand it is a newspaper article, not redlipstick's or my opinion. When I hear the rest of the tape I will hear for myself the exact words and the context in which they are said.
Tomorrow the rest of this block of tape will be played. I would think it will be available on the internet by tomorrow if it isn't already.
BTW, Val is correct. It is a fact that the blood from the jacket was available for testing by the defense. The bloodstain was cut out of the jacket and DNA extracted and the defense could have tested that same segment. You are wrong in your reply to her. You are constantly ignoring facts, or getting them wrong.
It is a fact that Feldman went to trial quickly to hopefully minimize the amount of testing that could be done.
It is not a sign of open mindedness to state that 2+2=5 when it is a fact that 2+2=4. We are dealing with facts here, not vagaries open to any old interpretation one cares to dream up.
Do not post to me again, and do not invoke my name in a post.
Sometimes it is too easy to state your opinion as fact. and get away with it. Neither side should have it that easy. Just My opinion.
Having another problem with comprehension are you?
I did not ask UCANSEE2 to leave the thread. I asked him to not post or refer to me personally. See the difference? I hope so, because it is a pretty big difference.
And don't bother telling me not to post to you. I have no intention of making further comment to you, except if you are going to refer to me directly or obliquely I certainly feel free to respond.
Clearly you are of the school that if you want 2+2 to = 5, then, by golly!, your opinion is as good as the next person's. I don't buy it.
There is a reason polygraph exams are not allowed in court. Yet many of you are saying that his nod of the head, and answers are proof of guilt.
The officers inform DW that he failed the polygraph and KFMB played a segment of it at the top of the hour.
Thank you for that information. I said I might have missed something. Did he fail one, two, three , or four? Or did they not specify?
Is is possible that any human being, subjected to four polygraph exams, could fail one out of four? Do you have any statistics? Are you just assuming because they said he failed, that is all you need to know? Guilty as hell. Doesn't matter. Fits what I want to believe so I accept what the court won't even allow.
I think the best thing is for each of us to listen, if possible, and judge for ourself. Problem with the poly/exams is without seeing the graph results, you know absolutely nothing. Since you can't see those, your opinion means nothing. Knowing how many he failed, the exact questions he failed, if he had variances on other questions, all these factors make up doing a polygraph exam.
It is a fact that Feldman went to trial quickly to hopefully minimize the amount of testing that could be done.
Prove the above statement, and I will concede that DW is guilty as hell. If you can't prove it, then stay off the threads. Is that a deal?
We are dealing with facts here, not vagaries open to any old interpretation one cares to dream up.
Yeah, facts. He nodded his head. That means....
You and redlipstick keep repeatedly taking things and telling us you THINK it means this. Those are not facts. It is your interpretation.
I have no problem with that, just don't try to disguise your interpretation as facts.
If there was a piece of the jacket left for Defense to test, OK. I do remember that they had destroyed some of the evidence. It was either the carpet piece or the jacket. Want to call me a liar on this too? Bet I can prove it.
Do not post to me again, and do not invoke my name in a post.
What's a matter, afraid? Can't get me to accept your interpretation, so you want me to go away.
I am here to discuss and debate this. I have my side, others have theirs. If you don't like there being another side, another view, go hide somewhere where reality can't get to you. You are acting like a baby and I really didn't expect that of you.
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.