Skip to comments.
Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers('Cause He was Really Guilty)
Court TV ^
| Harriet Ryan
Posted on 09/19/2002 7:03:56 PM PDT by Jalapeno
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 401-410 next last
Comment #141 Removed by Moderator
To: roob
Oh, and we still need a name. "Official sources" who dare not endorse it with their own name, and clarify that a proposal or counter proposal offering the body's location as a bargaining chip came through Feldman?
With such a horrific act as what Westerfield was accused of, the presence or absence of a body would make no moral difference in what he deserved if guilty.
To: roob
And if so, sounds like detectives were all too ready to accept a foolish bargain. I would be among those who say if he is truly guilty, off with his head -- body or no body.
To: roob
Oh, and as I have pointed out time and again, knowing where the body was may strongly implicate his guilt but it would not logically prove it to a 100%. As long as even (for the sake of argument) 1% possibility of innocence existed, his lawyers were within rights to push that possibility to the hilt in court.
To: roob
The very first line is wrong. The dates I've seen, show DW plead "not guilty" atleast a day before the body was found. Maybe somebody's exagerating.
To: John Jamieson
One can change a plea. What this report is being claimed as meaning by O'Reilly and others is not logically impossible. I just want to see at least one or more primary parties step up to the plate to name themselves and put themselves behind an unequivocal statement. (Legally, I don't think they can, unless Westerfield concedes.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
You're doing a great job, hang in there!
I've decided to also examine the possiblity that if DW did do it (which is different than was it proven), who was the accomplise? if you buy the 4 bugguy's calculations, as I do, somebody else is involved. There's also the little matter of unidentified fingerprints in the VD house.
One poster yesterday said she would have convicted DW on the one fringerprint in the RV alone, but the extra fingerprints in the vD house bothered her not a bit!
Comment #148 Removed by Moderator
To: HiTech RedNeck
I think press, poetic licience is more likely, but you could be right.
To: HiTech RedNeck
Finding the body helped DW alot, but the jury didn't see it. The body was in the wrong place and dumped at the wrong time to fit the prosecutor's theory, which he stuck to anyway.
To: roob
I don't. But you'll have to take that up with the author of the article or the SD police and/or sheriff's departments. Maybe somebody will give you the source's name. I think everybody and their uncle and aunt who has questioned the government case all along would like to know that. I'd think it would come out quickly on the Internet if a statement could be paired with a name that takes responsibility for it.
To: hole_n_one
Dead on Balls is pretty accurate. Posi-traction is also good.
152
posted on
09/20/2002 12:02:09 AM PDT
by
johnny7
To: HiTech RedNeck
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. The same kind of insinuation that Feldman presented in trial as evidence that Westerfield was innocent?
-PJ
To: Political Junkie Too
You may remember that under our legal system the TOTAL burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense is required to prove nothing. I believe that this system was purposeful.
To: John Jamieson
Who else may have handled Danielle or her body... only God (and probably, David Westerfield) knows.
To: John Jamieson
John, just popping in to say hi, and congratulate you on your new grandson! I don't post around here anymore, but do keep up with you. Again, congratulations:)
156
posted on
09/20/2002 12:08:45 AM PDT
by
Jrabbit
To: HiTech RedNeck
I think the best bet is Brooke L. Rowland, but there are lots of other possibilities.
To: Political Junkie Too
Feldman has the right to insinuate that. The detectives may have a right to insinuate the opposite. That doesn't mean they aren't sleazes if they know they are wrong (and unlike Feldman -- who would only have a strong reason to suspect Westerfield's guilt -- the detectives WOULD know they are wrong).
Comment #159 Removed by Moderator
To: spqrzilla9
What O'Reilly is doing is attempting to undermine the most basic principles of our system of justicePossibly, but what the attorney did was undermine the most basic principles of ethical behavior. May his lack of fundamental human decency not go unnoticed by either men or God.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 401-410 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson