Do Westerfield Groupies have Second Thoughts?

[11th Earl of Mar]

I hope the father's creepyness does not affect things.

Since when should it be legal to kidnap and rape the children of weirdos?

[Krodg]

Do Westerfield Groupies have Second Thoughts?

I don't have 'second' thoughts about Westerfield's guilt...I do have 'second' thoughts about being associated with people who assume a person's guilt from what the media feeds them.

[Krodg]

Further, they took heated issue with, including ridiculing, any who argued that since someone definitely did it, and since the evidence pointed to Westerfield, scenarios of how he could have committed the crime held validity.

As it turned out, one of those scenarios was close to the truth.

Which scenario??

[norton]

"FR is not a court of law. Assumption of innocence need not extend beyond the courthouse. We can even conclude guilt from "evidence" we know.'

You got the quote marks wrong...should be:

"FR is not a court of law. Assumption of innocence need not extend beyond the courthouse. We can even conclude guilt from evidence we "know".

Rumors of watch boxes and/or being spotted in a strange town are only that until taken to court and proven. Finding a body near a spot where someone advertised he'd been months before could be argued by either defense or prosecution.

Lynch mobs aren't nice things, even verbal ones.

To Alisasne; I THINK Jackson is guilty as hell, don't know it but expect it to be proven IF it goes to court. I don't even trust the courts too very much but rounding up the townspeople to hunt down Frankenstein's monster isn't the best alternative (I could make exception for friends of Osama).

There is a pretty coarse tendancy in these discussions, admittedly moreso at another 'conservative forum' than at FR. If we are in favor of individual rights we'd better be willing to allow them their day in court just as we'd expect for ourselves.

[luvbach1]

My point can be reduced to this: we have a right to draw our own conclusions as to guilt or innocence outside the courthouse. This does not preclude opinions from those who disagree. But their disagreement in no way should inhibit us from taking our stance. As to my quotes, I meant evidence which, in our opinion, we know. All of this is perfectly proper outside the court house. This is where we apparently disagree. And I don't think anything said displayed a "coarse tendancy." I just disagree with you. Perhaps you did not refer to me. Expressing opinions of guilt or innocence outside of court do not deny the accused his; "her day in court". We disagree, but that's ok.

[luvbach1]

Where else does one outside a case receive information but from the media (all sources available)? The conclusions one draws from such information need not be dictated or invalidated by the source. The conclusions I drew were my own.

[luvbach1]

Which scenario was true? All of this was gone into ad neauseum months ago but obviously some still need to hear it again*. So, in brief, here goes: Westerfield crept into the darkened house, abducted the child, took her into his motor home, drove a circuitus route around San Diego County with her, assaulted her (blood and circumstantial evidence), at some point murdered her, and eventually, dumped her body in rural Descanso. This is the basic scenario the jury believed and upon which they convicted Westerfield. The crime took place, the evidence pointed to Westerfield, the jury convicted him. Anyone asking why he did it, or who wants a more detailed or "truer" account, will not find it for it does not exist. *Only Westerfield knows all that happened (and he is likely in denial), and he's not talking. So please don't ask me.