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 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 401-410 next last
To: roob
Ok, there was also a hearing on Feb 26, maybe he didn't plead then.
To: Political Junkie Too
Feldman has the right to insinuate that. The detectives may have a right to insinuate the opposite [I mean, that Feldman knew of Westerfield's knowledge of the body's location. - HTRN] . That doesn't mean they aren't, respectively, 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 have a reason to know they are wrong).
To: freebilly
but what the attorney did was undermine the most basic principles of ethical behavior Short of a flat declaration by Westerfield to the attorneys that he was guilty of the crime charged, the attorney did no such thing.
Comment #164 Removed by Moderator
To: freebilly
"undermine the most basic principles of ethical behavior"
I doubt that Feldman did that. But time will tell, it's too early to draw conclusions with no evidence beyond 4 month old newspaper rumors.
We'll see just how O'Reilly does. I predict he will eat crow.
To: freebilly
Note that in our system of law, if the prosecution knows of information that might tend to exonerate the accused, that information must be revealed to the defense. The defense need not (in fact, may not) reciprocate to the prosecution with respect to information that might tend to cause him to be found guilty. This is as it should be, because of the superior power of the state to provide unlimited funding to a prosecution.
Comment #167 Removed by Moderator
To: HiTech RedNeck
Short of a flat declaration by Westerfield to the attorneys that he was guilty of the crime charged, the attorney did no such thing.Oh, that's right! Offering to lead investigators to the body does not constitute an admission of guilt!
Obviously rhetoric was taught separately from logic where you went to school....
To: John Jamieson
O'Reilly sometimes goes a bit overboard with respect to law-and-order issues. O'Reilly once implied that street justice meted out by police (read: beatings, and not in self defense) to suspected but not proven trouble makers, was just peachy keen. I sent him a scorching letter for that one.
To: freebilly
Offering to lead investigators to the body does not constitute an admission of guilt! That would be quite correct. It would logically only mean that he saw, or was told, where the body went.
Comment #171 Removed by Moderator
To: roob
I don't see where Feldman ever implied, let alone stated, to the court that "Westerfield does not know where the body is."
To: freebilly
"Offering to lead investigators to the body"
I hadn't heard anyone claim that David Westerfield did that. Why didn't they accept? He talked to the lead investigators way before the body was found. After 2/4, I don't believe he ever talked to them again. Although, they illegally tried to talk to him in jail, I understand.
Feldman undoubtable talked to the prosecution about any deal that they had in mind and he may have even suggested a deal to find out what they knew. It's done all the time.
To: HiTech RedNeck
"Westerfield does not know where the body is"
put that in past tense of course. "Westerfield did not know where the body was."
To: HiTech RedNeck
Alright, what do you think Feldman was suggesting to the jury... that Westerfield was merely "terrorizing" Danielle? Or anybody else for that matter? Surely not. (Maybe, it was the terror of thinking that with Danielle's disappearance and Brenda's existing hostility towards him, his name was now Mud.) What I think he was saying was that DW's not a career criminal, and other that this one crime (murdering Danielle), he's been out of trouble with the law. It's a silly defense to spare his defendant's life, I think -- it reminds me of the friend of Timothy McVeigh who said that other than Oklahoma City, McVeigh was a good guy!
To: HiTech RedNeck
Gee, I don't remember this kind of outrage against the OJ lawyers; what would we be hearing if Feldman had won? What scumbag or what a great defense lawyer, or would the attacks be against Dusek? I wonder.
To: HiTech RedNeck
He would plead guilty and receive life without paroleThe actions of an innocent man....
To: John Jamieson
he may have even suggested a deal to find out what they knew Ooh, that could be right. There may have been some talk such as "well, if you would offer a plea bargain in exchange for revealing where the body is, I'll ask Westerfield if he would be willing to accept." Which of course does NOT mean that Westerfield said boo about it to Feldman! Except maybe to okay Feldman's usage of that tactic.
To: NYCVirago
Get real. Feldman would never imply guilt of the crime for which he was defending Westerfield. If he did, it would be a mistrial.
To: freebilly
Or the actions of a good lawyer feeling out the opposition. This is not EVIDENCE.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 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