[AppyPappy]

No it is stating your innocence for the world to hear. Westerfield's life is on the line. He needs to win this case BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Remember, he is ON TRIAL. I'm not on trial. Why is that? Because the State thinks HE did it, not me. They have enough evidence to put him on trial. They told the jury that HE is guilty. He needs to refute them and state for the record "THE STATE IS WRONG. I AM INNOCENT".

[bvw]

No sir, that is still for all practical effect. presumption of guilt.

[bvw]

Perhaps others will dally and feint with you on this so as to chance to explain it to you. I'm shall just repeat as often as you rejoin -- "It is presumption of guilt."

[wimpycat]

If I was an innocent person charged with such a heinous crime, I would be shouting my innocence from the rooftops. I would testify in my own defense. Most reasonable people would...if they were innocent. Most reasonable jurors don't hold it against somebody if they don't testify (it's their right not to do so)--but it sure is a big plus in their favor if they do. Westerfield could get up there and talk about how awful it is to be wrongfully accused of such a horrible crime and gain a lot of sympathy.

I served on two juries with a total of 5 defendants. None of them took the stand-their lawyers didn't offer any exculpatory evidence at all. Their whole defense was to poke holes in the state's evidence--unsuccessfully, as it turns out, because they were all convicted.

[UCANSEE2]

No it is stating your innocence for the world to hear. Westerfield's life is on the line. He needs to win this case BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Remember, he is ON TRIAL. I'm not on trial. Why is that? Because the State thinks HE did it, not me. They have enough evidence to put him on trial. They told the jury that HE is guilty. He needs to refute them and state for the record "THE STATE IS WRONG. I AM INNOCENT".

Well, all I can say is you have it ALL WRONG. It is the PROSECUTION that is trying to win the case BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, including having the Judge on their side, LYING during opening and closing statements, having affidavits SEALED that would show the innocence of the defendant. That State doesn't think he did it. The DA needed a PERP quickly. Brenda pointed to DW. The police then found everything he did or said as suspicious. They then went about finding some evidence that COULD link him to Danielle. When all the circumstances came out in court, those links were shown to be a case of YES THEY WERE THERE, BUT WHEN did they get there.

The fact the dogs did not HIT on the MH proves that Danielle hadn't been in it for quite some time.

Yes, you are right, THEY told the JURY he is guilty. So, I say you are guilty, NOW CAN I PUT YOU IN JAIL. Is that all it takes? Someone says you are?

The JUDGE more or less said DW is guilty, which will be grounds for mistrial. THis whole trial has been a major malfunction from the beginning. The Prosecution witnesses lying and being caught at it, the LE investigators changing stories, the cross contamination of evidence. The DA is hanging his re-election bid on this case. THAT IS WHY THEY ARRESTED DW before they really had found hard evidence. THey then ignored evidence that might have led to her real killer, and ignored evidence at the time that might have allowed her to be found ALIVE.

Him getting on the stand and saying "I AM INNOCENT" will accomplish nothing. EVER BEEN TO PRISON. EVERYONE in PRISON is INNOCENT, JUST ASK THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!