Prosecutor: Westerfield Guilty 'Beyond Possible Doubt'(Many Still Find Van Dam's Culpable)

Court TV ^ | August 7, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[spectre]

Take special notice, the Prosecution doesn't seem to be bothered they aren't sequestered. Wonder why? LOL!!!

[UCANSEE2]

DJ wins the prize for the most probably answer.

small1 wins the prize for the most hilarious answer.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU BOTH !!!!!!!!!!!!

[fatima]

So you think it will be a hung jury,got to watch most of it today.

[the Deejay]

"Judge Mudd STILL refuses to Sequester the Jury, even tho they have sent him NOTES saying they are under pressure..."

Major issue for appeal right there. Feldman has been BEGGING for a sequestered jury since the prelim. All he
got was a gag order. Now, that did a lot of good, didn't
it? (The judge just forgot to gag all viewers & reporters.)

[the Deejay]

Well, THANK YOU! LOL

[spectre]

Did it ever occur to you, that if DW KNEW there were these tiny drops of blood on say his jacket and comforter, all he had to do was cut HOLES in the area of the specks...flush down the toilet, or heck, set fire to the fibers in an ashtray and POOF..all gone?

The DA didn't seem to have a problem cutting holes in his jacket, did they?

sw

[UCANSEE2]

If it comes to a retrial, I'm sure that jury will be sequestered.

BUT, it will be a little too late for that!

Just imagine, the search for jurors who didn't watch CTV or any other TV station. Or listen on the radio, or read about it in a newspaper.

Have to go to Afhganistan to get jurors.

[UCANSEE2]

I think your "GLOSSARY" has gotten to be a bit much. Maybe it's time to lose it?

Just curious. It is because of the length? Does it slow down your loading of the thread?

Or do you have a different objection?

[RnMomof7]

Well it felt swcattered to me..but it was not for me

[small_l_libertarian]

Oooooh! You know what I just noticed? (If someone has already mentioned this, sorry in advance - delayed brain engagement on my part.) Feldman dared the jury to look at the porn today. He wasn't scared of it at all - if it were truly child porn, would he tell the jury to, "Go ahead - turn to any page. Look at it. Pick any page you want." Just dismissed the prosecution's theory of motive with a wave of his hand. Interesting - sounds to me like he's fairly confident he'll win on reasonable doubt.

[the Deejay]

Freepmail call!

[UCANSEE2]

BITS and PIECES

BArbara Crumb had seen Danielle riding her bike in the neighborhood unsupervised. She had also seen mh in neighborhood unattended.

Neighbor saw DAW drain MH at 9:15 am (when he was supposed to have a kidnapped child inside it?). Many neighbors say MH is frequently in neighborhood. Sometimes doors open. Next door neighbor Miss Heftz (sp) said MH doors were open. Blinds were shut. Light was on. That's unusual? What took her so long to report it to police?

[RnMomof7]

If the jury had been sequestered I would agree..but the kidnapping and murder of the other little girl..colors the water.....A hung jury maybe..acquittal doubt it

[the Deejay]

No one had mentioned that. But you're right, he *did* highly stress to the jury to *look* at it, all of it.

[spectre]

I swear, that comment of yours has GOT to be the CLASSIC quote of the WHOLE TRIAL!! So true!

sw

[Greg Weston]

>>>then dancing with the mother, was either proven or stipulated by both sides.<<<

Brenda denied it. Westerfield never mentioned it in his statement to the cops either.

To me Blood, DNA, fingerprints, hair, dog hair, fibers, desert trip, clean up = "Ton". Of course you can disagree.

[small_l_libertarian]

thankyouverramuch. thankyou.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

Gosh Greg! we REALLY missed you

[the Deejay]

"Gosh Greg! we REALLY missed you"

Like a sore thumb.

[connectthedots]

You're not whistling Dixie there. Let's see, the vdams, LE, DA for starters. I will be "glued" to any and all SD websites to follow it, too.

Dw would have no case against the DA. Possibly against those whose affidavits that were used to get the indictment. Anything said in court cannot be the basis for a libel/defamation action. However the republishing of statements made in court can be the basis for a defamation/libel action if it not a 'fair' reporting of the testimony. In this case, DW would have a tough time prevailing in such an action. This is why prosecutors rarely talk to the press about the accused, other than to simply state that so-andso has been charged and pretty much leave the rest for the courtroom.