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
Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers
|
|
Defense lawyers for David Westerfield confer at trial. |
|
|
|
|
By Harriet Ryan Court TV
The phones in the San Diego County Bar Association's offices rang nonstop Thursday morning. Nearly 100 callers with demeanors ranging from annoyed to downright irate told employees that they were calling at the urging of talk show host Bill O'Reilly to file ethics complaints against David Westerfield's lawyers.
"We had to change our voice mail the calls were coming in so quickly," said Sheree Swetin, the association's executive director, sounding exhausted and hastening to add that it was the state bar, not her office, that took such complaints. "These people are angry and we can't help them."
O'Reilly, the host of Fox News Channel's top-rated O'Reilly Factor, started the firestorm when he suggested Westerfield's attorneys, Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce, should be disbarred for trying to win an acquittal for their client when they knew, at least according to published reports, that he was guilty of Danielle van Dam's murder.
"How could two lawyers stand in court week after week and try to get a child killer set free when they knew, they knew the man had brutally assaulted and murdered a defenseless little girl?" O'Reilly asked on his show Wednesday night.
|
|
Bill O'Reilly |
His charges stem from a report in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Citing anonymous law enforcement sources, the paper reported that the lawyers tried to broker a deal last February in which Westerfield would reveal the location of Danielle's body in exchange for a guarantee that he would not face the death penalty. He would plead guilty and receive life without parole. Both sides were about to ink the deal, according to the paper, when volunteer searchers found Danielle's body.
The discovery meant no deal for Westerfield, and after a four-month trial, a jury convicted him of kidnapping, murder and child pornography charges and recommended he be put to death. A judge will impose the sentence Nov. 22.
During the trial, Westerfield's legal team focused a harsh spotlight on the lifestyle of the 7-year-old's parents, Brenda and Damon van Dam, which included partner-swapping and group sex. Feldman told jurors the couple's sex life brought them in contact with unsavory characters much more likely to do harm to Danielle then Westerfield, a neighbor with no felony record.
Feldman also told jurors that science proved Westerfield could not have dumped Danielle's body by a remote roadside. He called a parade of forensic entomologists who said insects in her decaying body indicated her death occurred when Westerfield had an airtight alibi.
"This guy intentionally deceived the jury. That is not allowed," O'Reilly said Thursday night on Court TV's Catherine Crier Live. "You can't make up other scenarios and point the fingers at somebody else."
He added, "No American should ever talk to these two people again that's how sleazy they are." A spokesman for Fox News said the host would be filing a formal complaint with the State Bar of California in the next few days. Complaints against lawyers filed with the state bar are confidential until after an initial investigation.
In San Diego, however, the legal community was rushing to the defense of Feldman and Boyce. Defense lawyers and former prosecutors pointed out that plea discussions are never admissible during trial and Feldman and Boyce would have been derelict as lawyers if they did not try to raise reasonable doubt in the case.
"He just doesn't get what the law is," said San Diego defense lawyer Bill Nimmo of O'Reilly. Nimmo squared off with the broadcaster Wednesday night on the O'Reilly Report and defended Feldman's decision to raise the parents' swinging and the bug evidence.
"You [as a defense lawyer] are not personally vouching for everything. You are arguing what the evidence shows, not what you personally know," said Nimmo. The evidence can be interpreted many ways and defense lawyers can seize on the interpretation most beneficial to their client.
"If the evidence is good enough, if the prosecution has strong enough evidence, what do you care what the defense lawyer knows? He'll get convicted," said Nimmo.
If Westerfield attempted to take the stand and lie about his involvement in the murder, then Feldman and Boyce would be required to tell the judge, but Westerfield did not opt to testify.
Nimmo and other lawyers pointed Thursday to a 1967 Supreme Court opinion in which Justice Byron White wrote, "Defense counsel has no compulsory obligation to present the truth." Instead the justice wrote, the lawyer must "defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty."
Each lawyer involved in the case the judge, the prosecutor and the defense lawyer has a different, incomparable role in the justice system, White wrote.
Nimmo, however, acknowledged that if the newspaper's report was true, "it's an uncomfortable situation." He said he likely would have withdrawn from the case.
"I probably would've lost some of my motivation to represent him as vigorously as Feldman did," said Nimmo. Monty McIntyre, the president of the San Diego County Bar Association, penned an op-ed piece in the Union-Tribune Thursday trying to explain to upset citizens why the defense lawyers were upholding the Constitution, not lying to the court.
He told Court TV Thursday, "Let's assume an attorney knows or has some reason to suspect his client is guilty, this is what the public is missing: The defense attorney is not the judge or the jury. He's there to defend the accused."
Marjorie Cohn, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson Law School, said, "The system worked. Let's not lose sight of that. Westerfield killed Danielle. He got a vigorous defense, and he got convicted anyway. That's the system working."
|
TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: capitalcrimes; deathpenatly; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400, 401-410 next last
To: Ditter
You're happy with the story you have, so be drop it and let some of the rest of us investigate a little more. We're not convinced that the story is that simple.
Why harp on us for being bad people, or stupid. You're entitled to your opinion, we heard it, but that's all it is. We have one too.
To: John Jamieson
DW, at any time, could have blown the whistle on these mysterious others. He did what was in his own self intrest, he sat there & said nothing, hoping for a not guilty verdict. Doesn't that tell you he did it alone?
362
posted on
09/22/2002 10:50:32 AM PDT
by
Ditter
To: John Jamieson
In your post #358 you did ask me to convince you.
363
posted on
09/22/2002 10:56:44 AM PDT
by
Ditter
To: Ditter
No, if anything it wopuld mean he was "involved", his only hope now is through the appeals process, he can't cut that off at the knees.
Don't be so sure of things that you can't be sure of. I have the same information you have, and probably equal intelligence. Think "out of the box" a little.
I still visit Deilly Plaza every few years.
To: Ditter
You said you couldn't and you're right. You don't have any information, I don't have.
To: John Jamieson
>>>>> but he didn't
"feel" guilty of those three things. <<<<
JJ, LOL at your interpretation.
Det. Redden and FBI criminal profilers will tell you those are the weasel words of guilt conflicting with fear of punishment. He didn't make confindent and strong denials, because he didn't "feel" innocent!
These types of sexual killers working in tandem or cooperatively with one another is extremeley RARE. DW did this crime as the culmination of years of peeping, skulking, and fantasizing. He finally acted out his desires and you can bet he didn't invite any helpers who might interfere with his violence/control fantasies by wanting to do differently according to their fantasies (this is why they seldom seek partners in these crimes). He is the perfect example of escalating depravity.
The porno ring you so want to tie him to manifestly did not kill any of their victims. The methods and reasons for their crimes are very different and I have no doubt that these guys were questioned (and property) searched looking for that link. The FBI and SDPD would have been thrilled and delighted by such a link, because they could charge these creeps with felony murder on top of the porno charges. Also being able to tie a porn ring into a grisly kidnap murder would act to open the spigots of funding (think congressional grandstanding)for the FBI task force on crimes against children. And don't think Ashcroft would ignore this opportunity to blacken SCOTUS' eye with it, as he was extremely put out with their gutting of the federal child porn statute.
Assuming that because there has been no media accounts of cross-investigation, that there has been no cross-investigation is specious logic.
You are still absolutely dead wrong on every aspect of this case. But keep flailing about, you might come up with some niggardly detail you can claim you were right about.
366
posted on
09/22/2002 11:13:43 AM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Valpal1
And, your positive that no one else is involved because ...... what?
They never killed anyone before .... Your sure? No unsolved cases in SD?
Why did they kill this time? Maybe that had a spare girl around and knew they were going to jail on 2/15, so they dumped her on 2/14. Don't the dates bother you just a little?
To: John Jamieson
Because - the FBI bowed out of the investigation early! I think after SDPD tagged DW and the FBI took a look at the case, they said, you've got the perp, we have other things to do.
The porno ring investigation was of long standing, had been going on for some months or even longer. I have no doubt that the FBI looked for links to them immediately because they had prior knowledge of them. However one was arrested immediately prior (1-2 days) prior to Danielle's kidnapping. So the other one, know the net is tightening, what? Goes on a kidnap jaunt with DW. Don't think so.
Look at the difference of FBI involvement/warnings in the Runnion case. They went into overdrive on that one because profilers thought he would reoffend almost immediately, base on profiling from crime scene photos.
Got any bets on how long before the first book/movie is out.
368
posted on
09/22/2002 11:34:27 AM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: 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".
I believe he failed lie-detector because I read an editorial last March blasting the DA for disclosing this information in an interview.
Watching the trial has convinced me that Westerfield has some kind of nervous condition, he trembles and the police said he sweats profusely. This condition might negatively effect this test. That's why this test isn't admissible. No two people react the same.
Compare this behavior with the zombie like behavior of the Van Dams. I wonder if Brenda was legally under the influence of pot when she passed her lie-detector. (At least, according to her)
As far as the police and their suspicions, there was an "A&E Invesigative Reports" televised after the verdict, which told the story of a couple in the midwest whose daughter was taken from her bed in the middle of the night.
No evidence of an intruder, front door was found open at 3am, father thought nothing of it, closed it and went to bed without checking his daughter.
Investigators interviewed said parents are suspects when no evidence of break-in are found. They could not believe a father would not check on child after finding front door open.
Father passed lie-detector. Father charged and convicted of murder. At least there was some evidence against Westerfield, they had nothing on this guy, except the fact the cops "knew he had something to do with it".
Appeals court overturned and acquitted father due to bias from jurors exposure to autopsy photos that were unable to show cause of death.
This verdict will not survive either, I mean when flies then dogs can't smell what there supposed to smell, maybe it ain't there.
To: Valpal1
"However one was arrested immediately prior (1-2 days) prior to Danielle's kidnapping. So the other one, know the net is tightening, what? Goes on a kidnap jaunt with DW. Don't think so."
Rowland/Whitmore had very little to lose at that point, didn't they? One last spit in the public's face? An old score to settle?
Of the three, Westerfield was the only one who had everything to lose.
You're a great researcher, help me find out if Whitmore was out on bail (see post 351).
To: Valpal1
Police had photos of who they were looking for since November from "operation hamlet" (a Danish operation), but no names. Whitmore was arrested on 1/27, after a phone tip on 1/25. I wonder who ratted on him? Talk about motive.
Rowland was arrested on 2/15 at midnight. Whitmore had a hearing that day so he might have ratted on Rowland.
To: rintense
Then why and the world would his lawyers offer a plea bargain with a body location and guilty plea in exchange for life in prison??????Sorry for the delay Rin, but I went to New Orleans for the weekend!(grin :-)
Anyway, what I was trying to say and explain is that there is no person on either side that is backing this up or adding any clarity to it. Nobody! There was a rumor going back to the time prior to the body being found, but nothing else and there is still nothing. It would not have been in the clients best interest for his lawyers to cop a plea prior to the trial. My guess is that they did not and the procecution made the offer. I am sure that Westerfields atty's said they would consider it as they are legally obligated to do. This is totally normal.
I believe some over zealous cops are responsible for this story and Mr. O is responsible for blowing it up like a thanksgiving TURKEY!
The legal system does not like to air their views and whatnot regarding plea bargains so I doubt that they will speak about it. O'reilly cannot go to court without proof and right now he has un-named sources protected by the constitution.
What a stupid thing to do to get ratings! The atty's should sue his ass off for this.
To: CW_Conservative
He said "As far as I'm concerned, I didn't do it. I know you are adamant that I did."
It makes it less strange.
373
posted on
09/22/2002 4:04:34 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: John Jamieson
Right after DW was arrested and charged, people were posting the County jail's arrest info. Apparently jail information is publicly available on the net.
I suggest you look there, I don't have a link, but it could probably be googled and found.
The had very high bails set, I don't think Whitmore found a bondsman to make bail for him, given the unsavory crime and the flight risk.
They weren't involved and it is highly unlikely that DW had an accomplice. i.e. the bug-sperts are wrong and had insufficient data to make a better determination.
374
posted on
09/22/2002 5:19:14 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Valpal1
You "think," "assuming that," blah, blah, blah.
To: Valpal1
I believe I saw that Whitmore's bail was 2 million.
And the article said he was being "held on 2 million dollar bail", which would lead me to believe that he was never out on bail.
To: redlipstick
Exactly.
As more and more negative stuff comes out from the LE background investigation, it becomes obvious why they started concentrating on him, and why they became so sure he was the perp.
It's going to get harder to get info though, I think, because the public, in general, has lost interest and the media is moving on to fresh pastures after trampling this one into the muck. There won't be as much follow-up jounalism as I would like. Brenda and Damon have no Q factor, although John Walsh is getting a new t.v. talk show program according to the Sunday Parade ragazine.
377
posted on
09/22/2002 5:50:13 PM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Valpal1
And testing still continues on some unidentified physical evidence. I doubt the results will be publicized if they do nothing to exonerate DW.
I'm hunting for a link I found last night. I'll post it to you if/when it resurfaces!
To: redlipstick
He was charged twice. First for a 10 year old and then for a 13 year old. I believe his original bail was lower. Either way it's still possible he was out on bail. Opinions don't count, we need the facts.
To: John Jamieson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400, 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