Deliberations Resume Friday, 8-9-02 In Trial Of David Westerfield (VERDICT WATCH CONTINUES!)

CNN.com ^ | August 9, 2002 | CNN

[FresnoDA]

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) --A San Diego jury began deliberations Thursday in the trial of David Westerfield, accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.

The panel of six men and six women adjourned for the day without reaching a verdict. It is set to resume deliberations Friday.

[SilentWitness]

Thank you, you may. There seems to be a 'reasonable'confusion amongst the posters as how to interpret the jury instruction as found at post 145. How do you interpret it?

[L,TOWM]

Keep fighting. Apparrently there are some here that need education in the US justice system--particularly what being a jurror is all about.

If we can keep educating, maybe we an avoid Eastern European style courts in the USA for a while longer...

[VRWC_minion]

But that's the exact opposite of what the jury instructions say

You are making an assumption that doesn't agree with the closing arguments. The unchallenged explanation on this was made in various ways by Feldman. He did it by expressing it and he did it by two example, a rope and the cheater at 21.

His explanation as well as his examples were never challenged by either the judge or the defense.

Assuming this is the approach to be made to the evidence, would you arrive at a different conclusion ? I think any reasonable person would have to.

[the Deejay]

"one of the pizza crowd that was smoking, IN THE KITCHEN?"

That's right! Damon *did* say that! After
he and Brenda said they don't allow smoking
in the house.

The jury will have to toss out their testimony,
according to the judge's instructions, because
of their inconsistensies. Damon said he told
Brenda the cat was out of the bag about their
swinging & she should tell LE about it......But
Brenda said, on the stand, "It didn't happen."
Well, that's just one lie. There were others.

[VRWC_minion]

From reading the instruction as per post 145, my interpretation is to determine the reasonableness of each fact/evidence.

If the jury listened to Feldman they will do it in total.

[small_l_libertarian]

It makes no difference what Dusek said in closing argument - that's argument, not testimony, not law, and not jury instruction. The jury instruction says that they have to consider each fact or circumstance on its own merits. The judge read the jury these instructions. Are you saying that Dusek knows better than the judge what the jury is supposed to do?

[Jrabbit]

Sorry, but Dusek used the 21 example.

[SilentWitness]

I think in closing arguments, each side has a lot of lattitude. The jugde did not object to Feldman's constant use of "individual fact" approach, either.

[Jaded]

Brenda testified that SHE locked the slider.

[the Deejay]

You also have the attorneys & their closing presentations
totally mixed up. Feldman never used a rope or the Blackjack analogy in his closing.

Add that to your Dr. Rodriguez moment, did you pay much attention to any of the trial?

[spectre]

Tell me, minion. If you had hired a couple to take care of your children overnight, and they acted EXACTLY like the Van Dams did...and you came home the next morning to one of your precious children GONE without a trace, tell ME that you wouldn't hold those people culpable? "YOU DID WHAT ALL NIGHT LONG?" would be the first words out of your mouth.

You certainly wouldn't have HIRED them to begin with, knowing their history, now would you have?

I'll bet that rage you are feeling toward Westerfield would be redirected to those sitters you hired who LOST one of your kids?

Tell me I'm wrong..

sw

[the Deejay]

VRWC_minion has DW arrested on Jan. 27 or 28th as well.
A Dr. Rodriguez moment?

[fnord]

Dusek's constant objections probably work against him.

The jury is smart enough to know to take opening and closing arguments with a grain of salt (look at Dusek's opening and note the absence of delivery on his 'promises').

Feldman was probably playing a hunch that by not objecting he would like the wiser and more confident attorney. Dusek looked plenty worried ... his whole career is tied to this turd he was handed. So sad, too bad.

[is_is]

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT PERMITS TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

whether DW did it or not he walks because of that instruction.....i've said it before....the LE/DA messed this case up so bad we'll never know for sure who did it....regardless of the jury verdict!!!

[the Deejay]

"whether DW did it or not he walks because of that instruction."

Exactly correct! I don't know why that's so difficult
for some to comprehend.

[the Deejay]

I'll tell you something else, when that Not Guilty verdict comes in, watch the exploding heads of the van damnits! That'll be great to see.

[Krodg]

To: VRWC_minion

---Clip-- The Americans charged include: Lloyd Alan Emmerson of Fresno County, Calif.; Paul Whitmore and Brooke Rowland, San Diego County, Calif.; Tracy Reynolds, Texas; Leslie Peter Bowcut, Idaho; Michael David Harland, Florida; Harry Eldon Tschernetzki, Washington state; John Zill, South Carolina; Craig Davidson, Kansas. The identity of the tenth American was not immediately available.

-----clip----

Announcement after Westerfield trial went to Jury ? A coincidence ? Is the tenth Westerfield ? Is that the info that is as good as a confession ?

774 posted on 8/9/02 10:13 AM Pacific by VRWC_minion

To: VRWC_minion

Ten Americans and six foreigners were charged Friday with taking sexually explicit photographs of their own children or children in their care

Sorry, this doesn't fit Westerfield.

776 posted on 8/9/02 10:19 AM Pacific by Krodg

Why are you bringing this up again??

[crypt2k]

according to DVD, the slider is found open

opened by Danielle sneaking out??? Ninja Stealth David would have taken care to close it.

[MizSterious]

Girl$, Interrupted - Underage "Non-Nude" Sites Skirt Legality as They Grow in Popularity

We've seen another article that was similar, but here is more evidence that rotten parents can have an seriously adverse effect on their kids. What parent in their right mind would permit such a thing, let alone help promote it?

[demsux]

BTW, there is an "unidentified" print on that slider...DW "excluded".