If you read the transcripts of the testimony of all the people who supposedly wound up in the Van Dams house that night, they are all different. Why? Who's lying? Probably all of them, about one thing or another. I found none of them to be credible, especially Brenda and Damon.If it is true that Brenda was scouting out a book deal before her daughter was found, that speaks volumes about her. Too many things don't make sense and add up, and have never been explained by the prosecution. He got a conviction on emotion.
That jury should have been sequestered. Does anyone actually think they were not influenced by the media? Court TV, especially that dreadful Nancy Grace had him convicted from the beginning. Could that woman be any more odious and obnoxious?
I hope you are watching the friends & family testify for him now....
These are solid folks.....pure Americana...
..and their love for him shines through....
..and his character shines through them.
I could have, which is somewhat disturbing, since I doubt that he did it. But just try putting yourself in the jury's shoes.
First off, they didn't get to see all the extra information we got - all the stuff that was excluded from the trial, as well as plenty of additional discussion and sources. To take a single example, we poured over the mummification evidence presented by the anthropologist, and pulled in dozens of other articles as well. If I'd only had the court expert's testimony to go on, I'd probably be confused over the issue. It took a fair amount of additional work - mostly provided by other people on the list - before I thought I understood the process there. The jury did not have access to that.
Second, they did have access to the media. While I suspect they tried to keep to their oath, and not research the case on their own, I am certain they did see some news about the case in passing. The vast majority of news sources were very convinced of Westerfield's guilt, and I have to think the jury realized this. If I thought every one else believed Westerfield was guilty, I'd begin questionning my own doubts, and wonder if there was something obvious I was missing. This is, I'd say, backed up by the fact that the jury twice requested they be sequestered. They probably recognized the same thing in themselves - which, I grant, speaks highly of them, and actually mitigates the whole point to some extent.
The final thing, and the one that would likely sway me, is the sheer amount of pressure. The jurors were known, and especially after the Samantha Runnion case, they had to know just how much they would suffer if they'd found Westerfield not guilty. There was little doubt but that they personally would feel repercussions, and possibly even vengeance. Yes, some people will stand for what they believe even against that. But, if you're divided - not sure one way or the other - the consequences to you can certainly push you towards conviction.
Knowing what I do, I think Westerfield was not guilty. But, putting myself in the jury's shoes, I really don't know which way I'd have voted. It's not a pleasant thought.
Drew Garrett