Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: jdontom
There is a soft sell and there is a hard sell. Dusek and the media did the hard sell.

Feldman had no choice but a soft sell. A very soft sell. In his closing he spoke about his own problems, his own unpreparedness, he apologized for not being likeable and begged the jury not to hold it against his client. Feldman told you to think that way about him -- that he is a bozo incompetent barely able to walk, as long as he's not chewing gum!

Why?

Becuase it makes you make the case (that he actually has very adeptly presented) in your own mind. You, a juror, must do that to be fair. He, that klutz, couldn't do it. Therefore you are free to take the case of his client up without giving klutzo Feldy the benefit of anything. It makes you heroic, even. A hero attempt at fairness. The defendant had a lousy lawyer, so you -- for Justice -- make the case he should have.

And amazingly (but not that you notice) you have all the facts, narrative and theory to make that case. Just amazing -- how did that happen? It was, you think, because of your superior and refined skills at discerning truth at evaluating even poorly made presentations. Sure it was! Self-convincing -- you, the customer -- buy yourself into the deal. Extreme soft-selling. It was terrific!

132 posted on 08/08/2002 3:09:41 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: bvw
Well done!!
I love your description of Feldman's feigned incompetence. It reminded me of the Southern Belle strategy of helplessness, a well known, [and deceptive], method for getting people to do your bidding.

Feldman went one better. His opening [subliminal] message to the jury was, you can preserve democracy and save us from the Taliban, if only you find Westerfield innocent. Very dramatic, but as noted by Court TV talkers, Feldman never risked his officer of the court integrity by saying to the jury;
"My client is innocent."

Another clever gambit Feldman used several times in order not to offend law and order [military connected] jurors. He praised the cops, said they did a great job. I guess that's to counter the notion that his line of defense requires jurors to discount the evidence the cops gathered, and rely only on feelings.

All the experts seem to agree, Feldman's only shot is to get a hung jury, and he could too, if there's one person on the jury who wants to punish the van Dams for their despicable lifestyle. I wouldn't have thought that possible if I hadn't read some of the comments here. But then, I'm amazed at how "feelings, nothing more than feelings" could sway good freeper folks.

If someone does start a prediction thread, I will add mine to it. And I hope it includes predictions on the time it will take for the jury to reach a verdict.
Mine will be "Guilty, in record time."

135 posted on 08/08/2002 4:27:14 AM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

To: bvw
Interesting analysis of Feldman's closing. Thanks.
297 posted on 08/08/2002 9:52:15 AM PDT by sunshine state
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson