Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers('Cause He was Really Guilty)

Court TV ^ | Harriet Ryan

[HiTech RedNeck]

When are you going to stop your blind defense of the government?

[Clinging Bitterly]

> we are not talking about OPINIONS, we are talking about FACTS

Facts can be pretended away with word games just like that. Attorney - client discussions are private, and a lawyer can and will pretend he didn't see or hear anything that would harm his case, and there's no legal way for the other side to prove otherwise.

Also, while an attorney can't lie to the court or jury about a material fact, he need not volunteer a darn thing. His pronouncements to the court do not amount to testimony, and he's not under the oath to tell the "whole truth" that a witness would be.

And here's the good part - it's all set up that way on purpose.

Dave in Eugene

[CARepubGal]

Nooooo! Let me try again: According to lawyers (no comment here), the system is based on the prosecutor proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Dusek did a great job at trial. Problem in Cali is the hippies are still infesting the 9th circuit court of appeals. They could have released the ratbastard if Feldman had not done everything to present every possible alternative scenario. That would have been beyond repulsive. I would like to have seen a public hanging myself (and some societal sanction on the parents). Out here, there is quite a strong opinion from the most unlikely (liberal) sectors: the only innocent in that case is the victim. That being said, my preference would have been to put Westerfield in jail (think Dahmer for the best scenario). This guy will have as much time on Death row as our seriously flawed justices (9th circuit court of appeals again) can give him. Time to come up with appeals and other sick stuff. Regular "Life in prison" OTOH would be shorter for a child killer.

[NYCVirago]

When are you going to stop your blind defense of the government?

Oh, you mean respecting the judicial system for making the right choice to put this sicko to death?

[NYCVirago]

Are you ever going to stop beating your husband?

Huh? I'm sorry, but when you make a point of minimizing or outright denying all the evidence against David Westerfield, to the point where you say that jurors will be sorry one day when the real killer confesses, I call that blindly defending him. Your rationalizations for his attorney's comments on the "three day weekend of terror" are just laughable. Blood, hair, and fingerprint evidence were enough for twelve jurors to convict Westerfield, but in your mind, they're also just part of the evil anti-DW conspiracy. If Westerfield ever does come clean and admit what he did, I'll bet you'll still say he is innocent!

[Amore]

You are absolutely right. It is amazing how people can read articles that say Feldy initiated the discussions about turning over the body and about how the plea bargain form was just about to be signed, yet assert it was only the usual preliminary plea talks and meant nothing.

What the Sixth Amendment provides is simply this:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The 6th Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that a defendant has a right to a "fair trial."

Notwithstanding that it is pretty much interpreted this way nowadays, it does NOT guarantee a defendant to every sleazy tactic a defense attorney can think up.

If this story were not true, Feldy would have issued a denial, and the Union Tribune would be sued for libel. Neither has happened or will happen.

[oremus]

http://www.unposted.com/plea.shtml

Unposted.com's take on the "plea deal".

[John Jamieson]

Yes, I remembered that little illegal visit too.

If DW was ready to confess the DA would have taken it even after he had the body. The body actually weakened his case; it was in the wrong place. He could have saved the tax payers big bucks, saved the van Dams from having to air their dirty laundry; quick, fast, case solved, election won, with no risk.

The van Dams would have known about any dealing too, and they didn't. Even Damon said, "don't believe the papers".

The whole story makes little or no sense.

[Valpal1]

Watch this space

http://sandiegomag.com/

for the upcoming arctle about the Westerfield trial, and interviews with SDPD. Supposed to be up on the website in a few days.

Some local SD people have posted hightlights at websleuths. Appears to be at local newstands now.

http://www.websleuths.com/dcf/DCForumID5/826.html

For those so inclined, read the Doug Pierce thread too. http://www.websleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=815&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0

Someone should post DP's version of the note next to the official transcript version. Outright lies, or mere embellishment?

[John Jamieson]

Great find Val.

"The detectives said to DW:"I know you had something to do with it. Let's help Danielle's family. Let her go to heaven in peace. Get her a proper burial".
Westerfield said "As far as I'm concerned, my life's over."
Keyser says" Help us get Danielle back. Have the common decency to help us. Show a little remorse and help us get her back."
Westerfield said,"As far as I am concerned I didn't do it."

That last line is creepy. I fits with a theory I'm working on that has DW and one or two others involved in Danielle's death. DW didn't snatch her, and didn't kill her and didn't dump the body, but he did provide the party vehicle and knew what was going on. Under CA law, he would still be guilty as sin, but he didn't "feel" guilty of those three things.

His strange remarks about the porno, also indicate he was working on it for someone else and didn't care a bit about what was in it. Was he compliling CDROM's for someone else to market?

[John Jamieson]

I need HELP from local SD researchers:

Paul Whitmore, 43, Grantville, CA was arrested on 1/27/2002 for distributing photos of himself having sex with a girl under 10 on the internet, and had a hearing on 2/15.

WAS WHITMORE IN JAIL ON THE WEEKEND OF 2/1/2002
OR DID HE MAKE BAIL?

[CW_Conservative]

"The detectives said to DW:"I know you had something to do with it. Let's help Danielle's family. Let her go to heaven in peace. Get her a proper burial".

Westerfield said "As far as I'm concerned, my life's over."

Keyser says" Help us get Danielle back. Have the common decency to help us. Show a little remorse and help us get her back."

Westerfield said,"As far as I am concerned I didn't do it."

That last line is creepy. I fits with a theory I'm working on that has DW and one or two others involved in Danielle's death.

DW didn't snatch her, and didn't kill her and didn't dump the body, but he did provide the party vehicle and knew what was going on. Under CA law, he would still be guilty as sin, but he didn't "feel" guilty of those three things.

I think you have to take into consideration how many times and in how many different ways Westerfield had been asked the question, "Did you kill her".

The police have already told him they believe he did it and the proceeding questions demostrate how they have re-phrased this belief.

So when Westerfield said,"As far as I am concerned I didn't do it," this is just Dave re-phrasing the fact that he is still innocent.

[Ditter]

Thanks for the links. I went to websleuths.com & the post #4 by Cherokee says what I have been thinking. DW doesn't act like a man wrongly accused. Apparently the way he phrased his responses didn't sound like he was innocent & being accused of a horrible crime.

I know I would be frantic & fighting & screaming my innocence to everyone. I know this because of the way I feel when I am wrongly accused of even a small thing. I defend myself. He appears frightned but resigned. Westerfield did it.

[Ditter]

My thoughts on *others* involved with DW in a porno ring are, when DW saw that it was all over (his life was over) he would have confessed & impalcated the others. As it stands, he is going to death row & the *others* are continuing in their business of child porn.

Would *your* lips still be sealed if in the same circumstances? Mine sure wouldn't be!

[John Jamieson]

Me neither, I'd sing like a canary! I thought about this subject a lot yesterday.

All I can come up with is that there wasn't much to trade on either side. To a fifty year old, there is very little difference between 25 years in jail, life or CA death. DW was cooked no matter what. He only hope was "not guilty"; he couldn't admit any guilt that would put Danielle in his motor home. That would make him at a minimum an accessory to kidnapping that lead to death. He couldn't expose others without going to jail for his life.

[Ditter]

He could admit guilt *now*, name the others & take them down with him. (I sure would) Except, John........ there *aren't* any others. You are a big guy............. admit it....... you were wrong.

[John Jamieson]

There are a lot of indications that DW is suffering from moral and legal fine line issues.

There is a rumor that DW failed part of a lie detector test where he was asked something like "do you know what happened to Danielle?" or "Did you have anything to do with the death of Danielle"? If this lie detector rumor isn't complete BS, it sounds like he truthfully answered (No) the logical question, "Did you kill Danielle van Dam" and maybe even, "Did you kidnap Danielle van Dam".

The police seem to be implying the same thing when they say, "We know you had something to do with it".

When DW says, "As far as I'm concerned....", which he used a lot, it could meam atleast two slightly different things:

1."To my mind, to my value system, to my sense of fairness...." Which would mean that he exonerates himself from the serious charges because he didn't physically kidnap or murder her.

2. "If your talking about my body, my corporal entity...." which again with a slightly different twist, means "it wasn't my hands on her".

In every case, the reading between the lines, indicates that DW is claiming without coming right out and saying it that others were involved.

DW may yet tell all, but not for many years until all his appeals are gone.

[John Jamieson]

How would you know for sure? Convince me.

I think that's just your emotional take, because you want a neat, tiddy end to this. Somethimes life is not that simple. There is good physical evidence in this case that others have to be involved.

I want the whole story, not the neat, shortcut answer.

[Ditter]

I can't convince you, you are unconvincable. You *want* others to be involved, the parents or pornographers in SD. If the physical evidence, DW's lack of an alibi, he had the time to do it, he doesn't proclaim his innocence, & he collected child porn, didn't do it for you. Now neighbors come forward & say he was a peeping tom, old friends admit to strange goings on with their kids, exwives talk, his grandfather was a molester & he spent time there while it was going on. You hang on to bug evidence, dog evidence or lack of & ignore the obvious. Blood, fingerprints, hair, fibers & plenty of time to do it. You don't want to be convinced.

[John Jamieson]

When Feldman referred to DW's "3 days of terror", I wonder if the reference was not to Danielle's terror (which certainly was much worse and may have last 2 weeks), but to DW's terror.

Was he caught by his own purent interest in a situation that spiraling out of his control? Was he invited to a desert sex party expecting adult women, that ending up featuring a tiny child? Was there anyway to stop it without going to jail forever anyway? Was Danielle alive, but certainly not well, the last time DW saw her?