Lesson Learned From The Westerfield Trial…

Me

[X-Servative]

I have to admit that I was one of those on the fence regarding Westefield’s guilt or innocence, and it wasn’t necessarily because of the evidence presented. You see, I have become jaded over the years by the media, and when I saw a public lynching taking place during the first few days of the investigation, the red lights automatically went off.

From anonymous sources to the Van Dam’s life-style and PR firm, people were spinning their webs to influence public opinion. This bothered me then, and it bothers me now. This trying of people in the media , whether guilty or innocent, has got to stop. It adversely affects our judicial process and way of life. Is this the O.J. legacy?

Is this where we have come as a society. Instead of a noose and tree; a pen, paper, and lots of electronic media stand ready to hang anyone who appears guilty based on anonymous tips and innuendo (see Steven Hatfill and Richard Jewel).

Justice was served in this case, but a bigger lesson must be learned. We must try the accused in the courtroom and not the public forum; otherwise, more guilty will go free and innocent lives will be lost.

[X-Servative]

…and justice for all!

[X-Servative]

Bump!

[WL-law]

So how was your lesson learned? Your suspicions of innocence were incorrect, so how does incorrectness (logically, false fact) act to somehow confirm your initial impression about rushes-to-judgment?

You should look up the definition of non-sequitor and try again.

[X-Servative]

You're missing the point. Before any evidence was produced in a court of law, the court of public opinion, based on media accusations and innuendo, had him convicted. Again, look at Hatfill and Jewel.

This, and many cases, are now tried in the public forum before they even make it to court. This is what I had a problem with from the beginning.

[cthusker77]

What you say makes sense, but I have an even bigger problem with lawyers who defend someone who admits to the crime. This is in reference to the story that broke yesterday that the lawyers were going to cut a deal for Westerfield but then Danielle's body was found and "sorry, no deal." Anyway, I feel they took the defense a little too far. They put out the "he was framed" scenario and the "maybe the parents had something to do with it" scenario in an effort to get this guy off even when they knew he did it! Is that a "fair" trial? Fair for who? The victim? Doesn't mean you have to lie to defend your client. I don't know how they can stand to look themselves in the mirror! I mean, look what he did to that little girl! There are ways of defending the guilty without using deceit. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that these lawyers should get some kind of reprimand or be charged for using the kind of defense they implemented. There is a statute in California that prohibits fabrications, lying in court...does this fit that? Don't remember the exact wording. Does anyone have any info on that?....

[mass55th]

Have you heard of the story published within the past 2 days that just minutes before Danielle's body was found, he and his lawyers were meeting with prosecutors to cut a deal? He was willing to tell them where her body was in return for life in prison. You might want to stick with the presentation of evidence, even if it's provided by the media. In most cases, it's all we the people have access to, and in this case it was all true. You should have taken into consideration that the parents were also raked over the coals by the media for their open marriage habits. The sickening thing is that these scumbag lawyers went into that courtroom & lied their way through the whole trial in an attempt to get this murdering SOB off.

[X-Servative]

I agree with you completely abou the attorneys. But this is nothing new. The same type of stories came out after the OJ trial.

[gcruse]

What you say makes sense, but I have an even bigger
problem with lawyers who defend someone who admits to the crime.

Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald on national
television.  Would you have denied Ruby legal
counsel in a murder trial?  If all attorneys refused
to defend Ruby, would a court-appointed attorney
have been risking his license to practice by
defending someone known to be guilty?

[Rockiesrider]

I don't agree with you in this case. Westerfields trial was a particularly interesting one given that he seemed to have such little motive for killing the Van Dam child. Even now you wonder why? He was affluent, well educated and so normal appearing. However, the body of evidence was so convincing that you just know he did it. It stuck me that at no time during that trial did he ever show incredulity that he couldn't believe this was happening to him. He was stone faced almost at all times. If he was innocent, I think his taking the stand was warranted in this trial. But, he didn't.A seven year old little girl abducted from her bedroom in an affluent neighborhood, murdered, left discarded in the countryside and you can only imagine the other horrors done to her, deserves the death penalty for him. Too bad it will be painless.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Where is the exact quote from the detective showing that it was Westerfield proposing that he reveal where the body was -- not the detectives in a presumptuous statement? Revealing where the body was would be a pitiful card for Westerfield to have volunteered to play; why would prosecution show any mercy for that?

[VOA]

Westerfields trial was a particularly interesting one given that he seemed to have such
little motive for killing the Van Dam child.
Even now you wonder why? He was affluent, well educated and so normal appearing.

This case gives me the shudders. I've not followed it closely, but heard enough
to think that if I'd been on the jury I would have voted for guilty...but might
have been slow to go with the death recommendation (I've no problem with death penalty,
but if I'm casting the vote, I'd have to be really sure).

And then the revelation that he surely did it given the negotiations for life-without-parole
in return for revealing the location of the poor child's body.

As you say, he looked "normal", intelligent and affluent.
But, as I tell friends when we watch some true crime show like "America's Most Wanted",
"they walk among us".

As I tell my brother regarding his little daughter: "Look after her, because if you
don't you can bet someone else will."

[Hildy]

Because that's what good Prosecutors do to help the family. Good people would rather help the family out by finding a body then get a gold star on their resumes.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well gee, if that's the case then murderers can bid the needle bye-bye just by hiding their victims' bodies well enough. I have a hard time believing that dog will actually hunt.

[ladyinred]

When you see a defense attorney start pointing the blame at everyone else but his client, ie, the victims parents, the police, etc. you can rest assured he/she has a guilty client. They don't just try to disprove the evidence, they throw out blame everywhere else, "smoke and mirrors" is a good term for that.

The evidence, imo, in this case was conclusive enough to point to the guilt of Westerfield. OJ's case is another case in point. They had everything but a video tape showing him doing the deed, yet the defense team blamed the police, the victims, and finally one of the police officers. That was disgusting, as is the ploy used in this case, blame the parents life style. Despicable!

[HiTech RedNeck]

And then the revelation that he surely did it given the negotiations for life-without-parole in return for revealing the location of the poor child's body.

Again, someone show me a quoted statement from a detective claiming that Westerfield was volunteering to reveal the body's location -- not police (who had, of course, already convicted him in their mind) proposing that to him.

[HiTech RedNeck]

When you see a defense attorney start pointing the blame at everyone else but his client, ie, the victims parents, the police, etc. you can rest assured he/she has a guilty client.

Or else an innocent one who has gotten badly framed and they don't know whodunit.

[MissAmericanPie]

I think the lawyers really ran past some ethical line. It's one thing to defend your client on the evidence, it's another to throw red herrings that they know was a lie.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Someone... anyone... a direct statement from a detective please. Too much room for Clintonian parsing of "negotiations" until an officer puts a direct statement out that Westerfield volunteered that he could reveal where the body was.

[mass55th]

I'm not sure where the quote is located. Here is the link to the first story that was published about it:

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/news/752149/posts

If you do a FR search for the keyword Westerfield, you'll find other articles posted.

[Freedom2specul8]

Great thread ping.... we missed this one from yesterday...