Skip to comments.
In taped interrogation, Westerfield tells police 'my life is over'
San Diego Union Tribune ^
| January 7, 2003
Posted on 01/08/2003 9:24:19 AM PST by TomB
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 1,541-1,560 next last
To: MeeknMing
I posted a clarification earlier and failed to ping you to it. The prosecution said today after I posted that pic of the scratches that they took danielle's hands and could not match her nails with the scratches.
81
posted on
01/08/2003 2:31:02 PM PST
by
Freedom2specul8
(''To educate a man in mind & not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'')
To: Joe Hadenuf
During the interrogation, Westerfield did everything but admit, and sign a confession to the murder. This is inordinately clear.
I just completed watching all of the video from the links provided on this thread.
It is crystal clear.
To: cherry
No offense, but you have not a clue, and are one screwed up individual.
This guy is guilty as sin. Anyone with a brain could see this after viewing the interrogation..... Think about it. If the police were accusing you of murdering a small child, would you be so relaxed after being told by the interrogator that he knew you did this act?
Or would you be outraged, scared to death, and screaming your innocence, over and over and over and over and over!
To: Joe Hadenuf
This is the first interrogation I've seen except for a little boy who was coerced into confessing that he killed his sister when he really didn't. I think an innocent person would repeatedly either deny deny deny... or ask for an atty and not answer any questions. Granted, innocent people may want to volunteer info to help..but I'm just not sure. There are some obvious marks against DW on these tapes..but not as much as I thought there would be.
84
posted on
01/08/2003 2:36:31 PM PST
by
Freedom2specul8
(''To educate a man in mind & not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'')
To: Joe Hadenuf
"would you be so relaxed after being told by the interrogator that he knew you did this act? Or would you be outraged, scared to death, and screaming your innocence, over and over and over and over and over! "
I misunderstoon your post to me..I agree!!
85
posted on
01/08/2003 2:38:19 PM PST
by
Freedom2specul8
(''To educate a man in mind & not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'')
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
This guy was an interrogators dream come true. A real push over, not to mention a bad liar, psychopath and a brutal child murderer.
To: cyncooper
One quick question for you:
If the bug evidence is now discredited as a forensic tool, why aren't all those in jail because of bug evidence released immediately?
Or were all the bug guys only wrong on this case?
Just wonderin...
FRegards,
PrairieDawg
To: PrairieDawg
If the bug evidence is now discredited as a forensic tool, I don't think bug evidence is thoroughly discredited, per se. It was conceded by the experts that it is not exact and the observations made in this case indicated an atypical situation, per testimony.
why aren't all those in jail because of bug evidence released immediately?
Please present a case where a defendent was convicted solely on bug evidence.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
There are some obvious marks against DW on these tapes..but not as much as I thought there would be.Well, to me it is one huge mark against him. In fact, I did not see one thing that indicated innocence.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Finally, we are getting the Court TV coverage the others saw earlier.
To: BunnySlippers
Dan Abrams' show on MSNBC is covering the tape, too.
To: cyncooper
Dan Abrams' show on MSNBC is covering the tape, too.Clarke and Dusek as guests.
Dusek says they never intended to use this tape and never attempted to have it submitted as evidence.
To: cyncooper
never attempted to have it submitted as evidence.Inaccurate on my part. Judge ruled it inadmissable, but Dusek claims they didn't plan on using it anyway.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
That's because indefensible positions are very tiring to defend. /smirk
94
posted on
01/08/2003 3:12:16 PM PST
by
Valpal1
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Thanks...
95
posted on
01/08/2003 3:14:37 PM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(http://muffin.eggheads.org/images/funny/dogsmile.jpg)
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Kim. I taped it today, and just watched again - very carefully.
When the detective says, "we know you did it..."
DW nods his head.
To: redlipstick
When the detective says, "we know you did it..." DW nods his head.
I saw that when I viewed it on the computer, too.
To: Joe Hadenuf
Oh my God! We agree on something. It must be the Seventh Sign!
98
posted on
01/08/2003 3:20:12 PM PST
by
wimpycat
(Nothin' could be finer than to be in Caroliner....)
To: PrairieDawg
There is a difference in this case...wrt:bugs..her body was dehydrated.. there was no fluid beneath her body...her skin was black and leathery. So, if there are other cases, with similar facts than I would definitely ask someone to look into it. If the body decomposed normally, as normal as possible anyway...than my answer would be no..it would not be necessary to lookin to them.
99
posted on
01/08/2003 3:23:21 PM PST
by
Freedom2specul8
(''To educate a man in mind & not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'')
To: wimpycat
LOL isn't that fun when that happens. :)
100
posted on
01/08/2003 3:24:01 PM PST
by
Freedom2specul8
(''To educate a man in mind & not in morals is to educate a menace to society.'')
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 1,541-1,560 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