[dogbyte12]

I would let a guilty freak go free if for example, there were strangers in the house that night, a dog, a family, an alarm system that was conveniently disabled, and no evidence of the suspect in the house. I would let him go if the bug expert the prosecution itself hired, and has used in over 200 cases, stated that the bug evidence proves he couldn't have dumped the body. It is reasonable doubt. People have looked alot more guilty than Westerfield, and have turned out to be innocent.

This is a capital crime here. The i's must be dotted and the t's crossed. There are too many holes in the case.

Danielle didn't deserve to die. Her parents are amoral creepoids though. With all the shenanigans in that house, the idea that a man who had never been in there, was drunk at the time, and was able to pull this off without leaving any trace of his presence, even failing to alert the dog, is very questionable to me. It doesn't pass the smell test.

If every one of the Van Damm's swinger friends had been properly cleared, I would look stronger at being positive Westerfield is the guy. The police stuck to him first, fast, and with blinders on. You don't have an orgy in the house one night, and expect the police to do otherwise.

If Westerfield didn't do it, I would look at people who were involved in the orgies in the house, who then were kicked out of the group. They would have been familiar with Danielle, the dog, and the layout of the house and security system.

[Rheo]

I have always enjoyed your posts...and this is another good one.

[alisasny]

You would let a child killer go free because the state didn't have enough evidence for you?

Maybe this is the problem with the jury system.

In case you didn't see my earlier posts I believe that Westerfeld is innocent. I did not come to this conclusion lightly either.

If I was a juror on a case like this I would make sure I was right when I had to decide the persons fate. To let an innocent go to jail means another child is in harm. Could be my child.