Judge upholds death sentence in van Dam killing

CNN ^ | 1/1/03 | CNN

[SunStar]

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) --San Diego Superior Court Judge William Mudd on Friday refused to overturn a recommended death sentence for David Westerfield in the February murder of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.

"The court finds that the weight of the evidence ... supports the jury's verdict of death," Mudd said.

[cyncooper]

Does anyone know if the information will all be available soon

You were pinged to that information back in post #201. It will be released by next Monday. (I then highlighted that information in post #202).

[UCANSEE2]

Wait. I am not affording you the courtesy any should have.

Have you heard of this article before?

[UCANSEE2]

Might I also point out that reply 218 applies to people on both sides of the current issue.

[EllaMinnow]

Yes. I have.

[wimpycat]

Because I think dipstick is a twit, that makes me a porno fan...nice try.

Case in point. Some posters will accuse "outsiders" of saying things they didn't say, having no realization that the "outsider" didn't say a damn thing to imply anything other than a strange subculture has developed on FR around this case. This is further evidence of the besieged pack mentality that has gripped members of the subculture. I'm willing to bet that if JR were to allow non-pack FReepers to vote whether to ban all threads pertaining to Westerfield or the Van Dams permanently from FR, the measure would pass by a landslide.

[Yeti]

I can't believe the "subculture" that has developed here at FR ..... we end up getting attacked as if from a pack of wild dogs, or else we start becoming one of the pack.

Hm.

[demsux]

saying things they didn't say

You didn't make that implication?

[UCANSEE2]

Thanks, cyncooper. I read the post, and where it said the information would be released Monday, the statement seemed possibly redundant. The information was supposed to be released MONDAY, and the article said it would be released Monday. Today is Monday. I thought this meant that the media would get the info today, and that they will take a week to decide what they want to let the public see.

One assumption would be that they want to be careful and comb through the info, releasing on the vital parts.

The other side of that is that they can selectively release only what supports the side the media has taken. Now, we have never known the media to do this, have we ?

I am sure that there is literally a ton of information that they will have to go through, and much of it would be of no interest to the average reader anyway. So, I give them the benefit of the doubt, for now.

When I see this 'damning evidence' I may (and feel free to) change my mind on the Guilt of DW. It is not that I am absolutely sure he is not guilty, it is that I am not convinced he is. I believe, based on the information I have gotten, that too much Mickey Mouse crap went on. It is entirely possible that this stuff went on because of Pfingst, Brenda, Damon, and that DW still committed the crime.

As has been said before, at this point, no one except Westerfield knows for sure.

And he isn't talking.

[UCANSEE2]

Then, I accept your opinion. Doesn't mean I affirm it, just accept that it is your true, informed opinion.

[wimpycat]

No, I didn't make that implication. I was using both of your comments as an illustration to the point I made in #214.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/816317/posts?page=214#214

[UCANSEE2]

I gotta go here in a minute, but I wanted to say this.

I know that those in the "guilty, no question" category think that those in the "not convinced he's guilty" category are braindead.

Well, I will speak for myself only here, but I don't think you all understand just how much I would like to see a release of information that unequivocally proved DW did it. I would rejoice in acceptance that the real killer had been caught. That the parents really could have closure. That we could have some trust in our LE's and Media.

That I would like. Do I think that will happen? Nope.

Here is why: If There really was DAMNING EVIDENCE, why not use it at the trial, instead of all the marginal crap they did use ????????????????????????????????????

It is like saying , "well, we had actual proof, but we decided to risk it and use the flaky stuff".

Mudd says "Damning evidence" and Dusek says, "if we didn't use it, it wasn't important" (sorry, I paraphrased. I am sure someone will provide the proper qoute soon. Whomever does, Thank you in advance). So, who is right ? It appears we now have to wait another week to find out.

[Freedom2specul8]

Update from Red...

"The sealed documents -- which include motion pleadings and rulings by the court -- will be available by next Monday, Superior Court Judge William Mudd said.
"

[Freedom2specul8]

It's good that you spoke up. I've never been involved in anything like the DW threads since I became a member back in '98. I've never seen anything like it either.

[Freedom2specul8]

An anonymous opinion paper? Is that what it is? I'll take a look-see.

[Jaded]

Geez, I thought we got past that.

[Freedom2specul8]

"The court of public opinion is comprised of thousands of people who, thanks to modern media, can now view gavel-to-gavel coverage of a public criminal trial. They can view and consider the evidence just as a juror would. And unlike jurors, they can replay tapes of the trial or read transcripts to confirm what they observed and to pose reasoned arguments to others on the subject. No more quick headlines, sound bites or video clips for us: we represent a knowledgeable Shadow Jury. "

Not only can "they" view evidence as a juror, but "they" get the privilege of seeing evidence and arguments that the jury was not able to see. So..."we" werent' a shadow jury. We were a spoon fed 'audience'.

"Trace evidence found in his home and RV was fully explained on the basis of prior contact"

Not correct. It was never explained. Odd statement.

"Documented proof of prior contact was presented. "

True..a lot of victims know their molestors personally or casually.

The rest of that section was just opinion...

---

How can two different groups look at exactly the same facts and come to such radically different conclusions? That's not even a correct statement. How can I ague with the author when they're not even stating it correctly. See my first reply.

[Jaded]

It's not just on the Westerfield threads. I thought for a while that it was then I started noticing it on other threads as well.

[Freedom2specul8]

Oh I've seen snotty comments on other threads, and stupid stuff..but not "wars"..but then the threads I've looked at and posted on were in general tame.

[Jrabbit]

The Elizabeth Smart threads are a good example. The Laci Peterson threads aren't going to be far behind.

[BunnySlippers]

Many of us with a less personal investment in the outcome of the trial have tried, and given up, posting on these threads because we end up getting attacked as if from a pack of wild dogs, or else we start becoming one of the pack. It's like it's consumed your lives almost to the exclusion of everything else and y'all don't even know any of the people actually affected by the case.

I personally felt that FR should have imposed a tighter rein on the Westerfield threads. The nastiness was not kept in check. the fact that the vitriol was allowed free rein here did affect my opinion of FR even though I have been here many years (under previous names which I have already disclosed).