Posted on 09/19/2002 7:03:56 PM PDT by Jalapeno
Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers
|
|||||||
Correct, his opinion should not color his judgement, but we are not talking about OPINIONS, we are talking about FACTS, and if the the attorney knows for a fact that his client is guilty he should recuse himself. If he is an appointed public defender he should ak the Judge to release him.
So what would be the best he could hope for if running the trial over again. Showing the 13 child porn images in a vacuum as it were? That's worse than finding them in the middle of a vast collection of non child porn.
Really? Then why did DW's attorney say that Westerfield led a good life except for a three-day weekend of terror if he thought his client was innocent?
Did Feldman ever offer any detective, who is willing to name himself or herself to the public, that "my client says he might tell you where the body is"? That is what the anonymous statement appears to insinuate, but "negotiations to..." can cover a lot of ground. It could mean that detectives proposed it and Feldman said he would see what he could do. (He cannot refuse to bring such an offer to his client's attention, even if it is a ludicrous offer.)
The parents lied to the police when asked about drug use and their open marriage. Dusek brought that up himself.
LE brought in Faulkner to help indentify time of death. Just like he had done and testified for the Prosecution over 195 times.
If his findings would have supported the Feb. 2-4 timeframe, he would have been called by Dusek and you and the jury would have ate it up with a spoon.
But since he contradicted LE, you cry like a baby and point your finger at the evil defense attyns.
I'm sure your big government daddy is very proud of you.
The torment *Westerfield* suffered? He was the one causing the terror!
If Feldman knew Westerfield was guilty, then what evidence exists that Feldman could present that shows Westefield's innocence?
...to question the reliability of prosecution evidence and to present alternative theories, explanations, etc. of the evidence.
Questioning the reliability of evidence is one thing. Concocting alternative theories is nothing more than playing "what-if" scenarios with the jury. He would really be asking, "What if my client didn't kill the girl? Would it then be possible if...?" If he knew the client to be guilty, then there is no evidence that proves otherwise, because he knew otherwise. He would be falsifying evidence to present false assumptions as possibilities, and he would be doing it with the intent to deceive.
-PJ
Show us the money, with a detective's name signed to it -- that a proposal brought by Feldman to detectives contained such information. Before that, it is so much unfounded insinuation.
I've got to disagree with you -- I think you're reaching here. If it were the torment of false accusation, it would be seven months as opposed to three days. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.