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 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 401-410 next last
To: bvw
So you are saying, DW was found guilty because Feldman signaled (emotionaly) to the jury that DW was guilty.
Would it be better for Feldman *not* to have signaled (emotionaly) & succesfully gotten a guilty man off, so that he could continue murdering little girls?
I am leaving your hypothetical mutterings out of this.
321
posted on
09/20/2002 4:05:22 PM PDT
by
Ditter
To: Ditter
In this actual Westerfield case I think the Jury should have heard it all -- the K&O interview tapes, all the rumors in float, etc., the lawyers should have their run to raise questions and alternatives, there should have been no pre-quel plea bargaining phase and no "sentencing phase". I also think the trial should have been heard one or two counties away from SD to better get an impartial jury.
But that's perfectionist fantasy. In the real world, did Feldman "signal"? I don't know, and I don't know that Westerfield is guilty or not either.
That's why I asked for a hypothetical answer. Is it okay to say a man is guilty of a capital crime -- or any crime -- based on intuition and feeling? Or should some mininal logic and reason be necessary as well? How many trials are like Westerfield's & OJ's -- emotional, emotional, emotional, and how many like Captain Preston's or William Penn's, where emotional force was used to bring home logic and reason out of the current common wisdom and mob feelings, and Jury's acted and were taken far more seriously?
322
posted on
09/20/2002 4:29:39 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: bvw
Well I certainly agree that the jury should have heard everything, the neighbors, the patrons from Dad's, the friends at the VD's, even the pizza delivery guy. There is nothing I have heard so far, before, during or after the trial, that would lead me to think he was innocent. Every thing I hear make me more & more sure. Westerfield did it!
323
posted on
09/20/2002 4:39:51 PM PDT
by
Ditter
To: cyncooper
It clearly was a reference to Westerfield waging the terror upon Danielle. If Feldman intended this, even in a slip-up, why wasn't there instantly a motion for a mistrial?
To: bvw
That is, should Juries be conditioned, expected, and welcomed to find for guilt based on emotion? Oh if you're a prosecutor yes yes yes. If you're a defense attorney no no no.
To: HiTech RedNeck
Because, as somebody already stated on this thread, it didn't occur at trial. It occurred during the sentencing hearng.
326
posted on
09/20/2002 6:58:30 PM PDT
by
Amore
To: Amore
Shamelessly filched from another forum - Feldman's defense of Madelyn Gorman:
"Feldman here. Two reasonable interpretations. We have doubts. The mother lovingly, lovingly walks her child across the parking lot, holding her hand to protect her.
The mother helps her child into the car. She glances around to make sure that no one is around in case they were followed since we know that many muggings occur in mall parking lots. A baby was snatched from a parking lot just recently. Two reasonable interpretations.
There is no evidence, none, on the tape that shows physical contact between the mother and the girl. During this time of year there are many insects which could have come into the vehicle...this vehicle had large doors. While the tape does show the mother swatting and swinging, this was a desparate attempt to keep a stinging insect away from the girl. Two reasonable interpretations.
The mother was successful in finally getting the insect from the vehicle. Again, the tape never shows any contact between the mother and the girl. It does show her trying to keep stinging insects from her face and body. Two reasonable interpetations."
To: Amore
This was not a good move for Feldman, since DW did not concede and he still intends to appeal. Unless he put it in a hypothetical context. ("Supposing my client to be guilty, then ....") Can there be such a thing as a "mis-hearing"?
To: bvw
The only thing I remember about the movie is that it starred Steve McQueen (one of my all-time faves), Richard Attenborough and Candice Bergen (her first film role I think), it took place in China, and that "Sand Pebbles" was the nickname of their ship or gunboat or whatever, the "San Pueblo."
329
posted on
09/20/2002 7:12:24 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: bvw
It's all very well to claim that Westerfield's was an "emotional" trial--as if that's an option; few people can refrain from feeling some emotion when they are confronted with the most inimate details including photographs, etc., of a child's murder--but the one thing you people will refuse to do is come to terms with the fact that twelve separate people heard all that evidence, and reached the unanimous conclusion that Westerfield is guilty of the murder.
Those twelve people came to the unanimous conclusion that he should die for it.
And none of your semantics and word-parsing and cute little logic-juggling tricks is going to overcome that stark, staring, LOGICAL fact.
330
posted on
09/20/2002 7:16:19 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: HiTech RedNeck
Because the trial was over. This was in the penalty phase.
In other words, the conviction's there; let's drop the pretense, since we all know that he did it.
Just sickening.
331
posted on
09/20/2002 7:17:46 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: cyncooper
#327
To: HiTech RedNeck
Garbage and more garbage.
The O.J. verdict was based PURELY on emotion. The DEFENSE built up this big, emotion-laden case of the po' black man persecuted by the mean, mean white cops.
Every generalization I've seen you make falls completely to pieces on the most cursory examination.
333
posted on
09/20/2002 7:19:40 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: redlipstick
That sounds like our Feldy.
To: HiTech RedNeck
We are not talking about detectives, we are talking about an attorney who was using information that only a guilty party could possess as a bargaining chip. Hence either the plea bargain was not in good faith or the client was indesputably guilty.
335
posted on
09/20/2002 7:58:29 PM PDT
by
Wil H
To: HiTech RedNeck
If Feldman intended this, even in a slip-up, why wasn't there instantly a motion for a mistrial? Because it was after the trial was over!
To: HiTech RedNeck
Was not a good move for Feldman, since DW did not concede and he still intends to appeal. Unless he put it in a hypothetical context. ("Supposing my client to be guilty, then ....") Can there be such a thing as a "mis-hearing"? Are you ever going to give up your blind defense of David Westerfield? The jury found him guilty. His attorney basically admitted he did it. Even Westerfield's mother concedes he committed the crime. While a few pro-DW freepers are still defending him, the rest of the world realizes that Westerfield is a pedophile and murderer. These pro-Westerfield posters are like some of the Japanese soldiers in WW II still hiding in their caves, fighting on long after the war was over.
To: Wil H
Hence either the plea bargain was not in good faith or the client was indesputably guilty. An attempt to get a commitment from prosecution TO plea bargain conditional on a hypothetical concession certainly is in good faith. We have zero to demonstrate that Feldman offered anything to prosecution but a hypothetical ("IF my client shows you where the body is THEN will you not seek the death penalty"). This is not an admission of guilt or even a claim that the client could locate the body.
It appears, sadly, that the jurors who are so incensed about these alleged "lies," as well as a large segment of the public, have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Unfortunately for Feldman and DW, one cannot appeal on the basis of "members of the jury have now demonstrated themselves to be utterly stupid."
To: NYCVirago
Are you ever going to give up your blind defense of David Westerfield? Are you ever going to stop beating your husband?
To: NYCVirago
His attorney basically admitted he did it. When? How?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 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