Westerfield attorney's begin defense: Dusek STUNNED by Defense calling for Keith Stone. Barb next?

Union Trib ^ | July 2, 2002 | Union Trib

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Oh my gosh. I'll check it out.

[UCANSEE2]

If you ABSOLUTELY KNEW that Danielle was NEVER in Westerfield's motorhome what would you vote? Guilty or not guilty? BTW, we will never know if she was or was not.

If I absolutely knew that Danielle was NEVER in DW's MH, what would you vote? It would depend on all the other evidence, because her having been in his MH proves nothing.

They have essentially proven she WAS in his MH. I guess you missed the trial so far, huh? The question is WHEN was she in the MH. If they can prove she was IN the MH after 02/01/02 after say 10:30pm, then I would say DW would look GUILTY.

Danielle could still have NEVER been in DW's MH and DW could still be guilty. You are assuming he killed her and took her in the MH. Is it possible he moved her with some other vehicle? Sure. Then all questions about the MH are MOOT, aren't they?

The PROSECUTION, still has not shown HOW Danielle was killed, WHERE Danielle was killed, Whether it was accidental or intentional, Whether she was in HER home and abducted, or somewhere else and abducted.

Again, all they have proved is that she was in DW's MH sometime between the time she moved to Sabre Springs and that Saturday Morning. That is all. Oh, no, I forgot, they have proven that the police made a jillion mistakes in taking evidence, that they proved in testimony also.

[luvbach1]

The prosecution didn't rush to take this case to trial; the defense requested and obtained an early trial date. This has rushed the prosecution case, which is probably just what the defense wanted to happen.

[BunnySlippers]

See # 84. The prosecution does not have to lay out the crime from A to B to C. They have proved motive and and opportunity.

[Freedom2specul8]

Ok well, it wasn't completely hell, just a lot of BS being spun and thrown. And as a couple of people said..lots of flame baiting

[luvbach1]

Her hair, blood, and handprint have been found in the motor home.

[MizSterious]

Yes, I noticed that, too, Kim. Like someone calling on Jim Robinson and so on. Yes, that can get incendiary.

[BunnySlippers]

Ludicrous. There has, however, been a concerted effort to silence those of us who still have questions about the evidence, or lack of it.

No, those who think Westerfield is innocent have played upon the instructions to the jury. It doesn't apply here and I think it's important to point out.

I think LE has caught a child molester and I don't mind saying it.

[Freedom2specul8]

really? How many times have you and yours told people to go start their own threads?

[MizSterious]

Ah, but if the handprint was in the MH, she had to still be alive, wouldn't you say? So how did he get out of the house, across the street, then miles away to where the motorhome was stored?

[MizSterious]

Ludicrous again. Actually, I think the blood evidence is pretty strong, but I'd like to see something more substantial to support it. Thus, I am on the fence. But because I have questions, you would like to say I "support" him. I do not. I would just like to see all the evidence first. I am not yet ready to knit my little noose and head for the lynch party.

[nycgal]

I stand corrected.

[BunnySlippers]

Uh yeah, so not matter what, Westerfield is innocent.

[connectthedots]

Feldman will remind the jury, during closing arguments, of everything Dusek claimed he could prove and systematically show that Dusek failed almost completely. It will be the last thing the jury will hear. That, and 'rush to judgment'.

[UCANSEE2]

I answered post 21 in my post 29.

Yes, you did, and Thanks. They continue to change their stories, and several of them are hiding something,still. Where is BARB?

[BunnySlippers]

Yeah, I agree ludicrous. Look at post #22. Those who say they are "on the fence" ... aren't. No problem that someone has an opinion ... but they shouldn't be "holier than thou".

PS: I don't know if you fit that profile. But I KNOW for a FACT that some here do.

[Rheo]

One of DW's shoes was used with the dogs before they entered the VD home....why did the dog not alert to DW as having been in that house?

[UCANSEE2]

Because there's been a concerted effort in this forum to shut up people who feel that a child molester (Westerfield) has been caught.

OH, I see. There is a conspiracy afoot.

I am not asking you to shut up. You have your opinion and are welcome to it. Let me ask you this, show me proof that DW is a CHILD MOLESTOR. If you have it, I will be happy to agree with you. SHOW ME.

[UCANSEE2]

If I am innocent, I am running to the stand to testify.
Boy, I couldn't agree with you more.

Might I also suggest that you each be your own lawyer in case that happens also.

[connectthedots]

The prosecution didn't rush to take this case to trial; the defense requested and obtained an early trial date. This has rushed the prosecution case, which is probably just what the defense wanted to happen.

The prosecution certainly did rush this case to trial. The prosecutor should have known better than to indict Westerfield before he had all the evidence he needed for a conviction, assuming DW is even guilty in the first place. The defense did not request an early trial. DW simply refused to waive his right to a speedy trial. All the blame for a hurried prosecution case must be laid at the feet of the prosecutor, not the defense.