[Krodg]

The motive was the porn, which is a misdemeanor. Nothing else has been proven. If you find porn so offensive you would convict a person of murder with circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt, IMO you are hanging a man on a misdemeanor charge. The porn itself is not a DP charge, but the weight a juror puts on the porn could send someone to their death.

[John Jamieson]

No expert would make that connection but some on the jury might. If their going to convict him of kidnapping and murder, seems to me, that they ought to have some proof of kidnapping and murder.

[The Other Harry]

The motive was the porn, which is a misdemeanor. Nothing else has been proven. If you find porn so offensive you would convict a person of murder with circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt, IMO you are hanging a man on a misdemeanor charge. The porn itself is not a DP charge, but the weight a juror puts on the porn could send someone to their death.

I think the "porn" was blatantly prejudicial and should have either been excluded or tried separately.

I once talked with a very respectable lady about the fact that she had used her computer to look at pornography. I don't know any of the details of what she did, but I don't think it was much. She was afraid that she had done something illegal that had left tracks on her computer, and she wanted my advice.

I had no advice to give her. What I told her was that I think probably almost all PC's will show some evidence of that, whether intentional or otherwise.

If DW had had thousands and thousands of true kiddie-porn images on his computer, then maybe that would show something. But I'm not even sure that would. Not unless an image of Danielle was in there.