Frustrated Prosecutor Dusek Swats At Final Bug Expert: Westerfield's Soon Will BUG The Jury....

Court TV ^ | August 2, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[VRWC_minion]

Dusek's overdone cross-examination only served to underscore the desperation of the prosecution

I don't beleive the jury is going to care what the demeanor of the lawyers was in evaluating the evidence. I know I wouldn't.

But, let me explain something I experienced after reading deposistions. When you read a transcript its almost impossible to detect the tones, the hesistations etc that you hear during it.

[mommya]

I would have voted the same way - but can you give me a hint to the basis of your acceptance of reasonable doubt in that case. I want to be able to relate your mindset to this case. For example - John and myself were on the same side you were for OJ - not proven - but we are not on the same side here - what was so different about that case for you?

[John Jamieson]

Very true. And it's amazing the detail that gets left out!

[spectre]

Yes, JJ. Feldman said she was "less than objective"...AFTER he called CTV and Nancy Grace "biased".

Mudd is living in lala land if he trusts that the jurors can't be influenced by the media.

Let's say I'm a Juror, I'm home RIGHT NOW...I tune into Court TV and listen to the chronically constipated Voice of Beth Karas, being "less than objective" concerning this case. MUDD!!!

sw

[gigi]

Thats pretty close to what Feldman said and I got a kick out of the Grin :)

[VRWC_minion]

How do you perceive Feldman?

I cannot watch him but he comes across as a gentleman and a very skillfull attorney who is working on multiple levels at the same time.

Also his mind is very quick which can be a problem because he may go to fast for some to keep up and it may him to open a door to an area before he should have.

If I were to use cartoon charachters, Feldman=Bugs Bunny, Dusek=Porky Pig.

[VRWC_minion]

Do you think there is something the jury hasn't heard ?

[John Jamieson]

Yes!

[VRWC_minion]

what was so different about that case for you?

Too long to explain and I have to go right now but its basically the sum total of the liklihood of all the evidence occuring. Taken individually I would agree with you but taken in total I cannot.

It would be like someone winning the grand prize lotto twice in one day.

[connectthedots]

I don't beleive the jury is going to care what the demeanor of the lawyers was in evaluating the evidence. I know I wouldn't.

Actually, it is very appropriate to consider the demeanor of the players in a trial as part of the testimony. This is the very reason that on appeal, the opinion of the finders of fact (i.e. the jury in this case) are given great weight.

All this said, if the jury comes back with a jury verdict, an appeals court could very well reverse any conviction and either order a new trial or grant an outright acquittal. There simply does not seem to be enough evidence that would permit a reasonable person to conclude that DW committed the crime without making the decision based on emotion.

[spectre]

Stop it!! You're making me jealous. My husband has always apologized and tried to make up for his lack of desire to go dancing..he buys me stereo's for every room, a BOSE surround sound system and forces me to buy CD's, saying "music is your life"...I missed out on the dancing, but the trade off was worth it...:~)

sw

[Mrs.Liberty]

POssibly, but I also thikn they could get caught up in the media feeding frenzy and misinformation.

[BARLF]

That is a very good pic of Westerfield. He doesn't look creepy to me.

[spectre]

That's the problem, the Jury is hearing Rick Roberts and his fans, and Nancy Grace and her selected fan letters...no.. they have heard more than they should as to what the verdict should be.

So,they will play it safe and go for the conviction..unless they plan on living in seculsion the rest of their lives. It will be easier to explain WHY they convicted him, than say they ignored the blood, hair and fibers. They will ignore the forensics and no evidence of DW in the home. They will take the path of the least resistance.

Could be a hung jury if a couple hold out, but not just one..it will take more. I reluctantly say "conviction".

sw

[cyncooper]

...the Jury is hearing Rick Roberts and his fans, and Nancy Grace and her selected fan letters...

Why say you this?

I believe the jury will abide by their oath and the orders of the judge.

[JudyB1938]

Nancy - when she was a little girl



'Exorcist' priest visits in Atlas

[ThreeYearLurker]

Did you follow the OJ trial at all? There was overwhelming physical evidence and motive that could not be explained away, even if you come up with the most ridiculous conspiracy theories possible. OJ walked because his lawyers got the dumbest jury possible, they did not deliberate the evidence at all.

Now I have been following the Westerfield threads and your contributions, and have come to believe that Westerfield didn't do it, because of the small amount of physical evidence and weak motive. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

[spectre]

I say it, because the Jury is human, and I don't believe they are free from outside influences. You think I want to be right? I wish to G-d I were wrong. Just knowing about Samantha and Cassandra will make them that much more inclined toward a guilty verdict.

Samantha's Mom was on Larry King pointing the finger directly at the 12 Jurors who let Avila off to go on to murder her daughter. Will these Juror's feel the pressure? I think so.

sw

[I. Ben Hurt]

Didn't work, did it? (the exorcism)

[spectre]

BAWHAHAHAHAHA!!! Gosh, I wish you could e-mail that to her with our "regards"...you know, "Won't you be our 13th Juror..let us know how YOU feel?".

sw