Posted on 07/12/2002 7:06:01 AM PDT by MizSterious
LOL
This latest refrain that if you think DW did it you are a liberal is a hoot!
I well remember Nancy Grace and her disgraceful defense of clinton during impeachment. A pox upon her for that. That she thinks DW did it and I think he did it does not, therefore, equate to the conclusion that I agree with her every thought----far from it!
And re: your post on typical liberal claptrap--that's what some of us have been saying on these threads since the beginning, but y'know how it is--the culture of the victim is hard to resist for some, and in any event, I don't think FR is as conservative as it once was. Many liberal infiltrators (masquerading as conservatives) have popped up. Not as obvious as Esquoire or however he spelled it, but bad enough.
This is info that Nancy Grace was trying to skirt around on CourTV this morning. What are you afraid of, Nan?
These two officers have a history (several cases) of false statements to get search warrants. They also improperly continued to question DW after he had invoked his right to an attorney. This is why the affidavits were not presented at trial and were thrown out. Question to cops: if you really think that you "have your man" why not just follow procedure and let the system take care of it? Answer: Because they knew that they didn't have the right guy, but wanted to do everything they could to "help" the case.
Dumb move, guys.
Though I hasten to add I'm not exulting over it. It is sad and pathetic.
"Westerfield told police that Brenda van Dam told him about the dance when he ran into her at Dad's Cafe & Steakhouse in Poway the last night anyone saw her daughter. But she told police she never shared that information with Westerfield.
"Only Danielle van Dam could have told him about the daughter-father dance and only after she had been abducted," according to the affidavit, which was written by a police officer whose name wasn't disclosed in the documents.
It was unclear yesterday why the jury hasn't been allowed to hear about this discrepancy.
During the trial, a police officer testified that Westerfield told him Brenda van Dam talked about the father-daughter dance at Dad's bar. But in her testimony, she denied discussing the dance with Westerfield."
Now - here's Brenda's actal testimony -
13 Q. DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING ABOUT A FATHER/DAUGHTER 14 DANCE DISCUSSION? 15 A. I MAY HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE FATHER/DAUGHTER DANCE. 16 IT WAS COMING UP THE FOLLOWING THURSDAY. 17 Q. WHOSE FATHER/DAUGHTER DANCE? 18 A. DANIELLE'S. 19 Q. WHO WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO BE GOING WITH? 20 A. DAMON. 21 Q. WHEN WAS THAT COMING UP? 22 A. IT WAS ON THURSDAY NIGHT AT THE SCHOOL. 23 Q. THE FOLLOWING THURSDAY AFTER THE NIGHT AT DAD'S? 24 A. YES. 25 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHO YOU WERE TALKING WITH ABOUT THAT? 26 A. NO. I KNOW I TOLD DENISE AND BARBARA. I MAY HAVE 27 TOLD MR. WESTERFIELD.
Thursday, July 11, 2002 More heavy duty experts on the way By William F. Nimmo, Esq. Edited By Jay Nault Unnamed news sources today stated that David Westerfield’s defense team plans to call Cyril Wecht, a very well-respected expert in situations such as this one. It is believed that Dr. Wecht will testify that Danielle van Dam died close to the time that her body became available to insects as a host. Dr. Wecht is the coroner for Allegheny County, which included Pittsburgh, and his area of expertise includes the ability to determine the time, cause, and manner of death of victims in homicides. Dr. Wecht is available as an expert in cases not involving his home county. I used Dr. Wecht in one of my own cases where a woman was accused of intentionally stabbing her boyfriend during an argument. Dr. Wecht’s testimony was a central factor in the jury correctly concluding that my client did in fact accidentally stab her boyfriend due the angle and trajectory of the stab wound, as opposed to stabbing him intentionally, which is how she was charged. The potential effect of Dr. Wecht’s testimony, when coupled with the testimony of David Faulkner, will certainly leave the prosecution with a major repair job. Although the prosecution’s cross examination of David Faulkner was very effective, common sense may still dictate that the insects did in fact infest Danielle van Dam’s body quickly. As I said earlier, one potential strategy to counteract this testimony would be for the prosecution to call experts of their own, but they will have more than a week to decide. There is still a lot to be decided in this case, and we shall see what happens.
P.S. Don't know what I'm doing wrong with the links.
Gosh....I don't know.
THC is the factor that gets you "high", it is also the drug that controls nausea.
In regulated marijuana the THC content is tightly controlled, if a batch tests too strong or too weak, it will be thrown out.
But, yes it will get the folks "high".
What amazes me is that cops know this rule, and they still try to cheat.
I would like very much to see that testimong Miz..cause if the girl was not bound that is had to be her mom or dad..no one elses could have moved her around like that without fights all the way
I think they HAD to question if she was bound to explain the finder print.
Remember that DA made a BIG deal out of Westerfield "talking to someone " in the desert? Would an unbound child not have looked out the windows? Yelled for help? run out the door when he was stuck?
They are the ones that raised the possibility that she was alive on that trip..they can not have it both ways
And perhaps not coincidentally--also the DA in his campaign. He really needed a quick arrest. I think he was hoping the trial would be delayed, as most would have been--that part of it might have backfired on him.
The police so far seem to have:
1. Announced a suspect
2. Leaked/spun to the press
3. Made the arrest
4. Looked for evidence to make a case
It should have been:
1. Get evidence
2. Make arrest.
Because that would mean that they were WRONG, and we can't have police, prosecutors, and the media being wrong, now can we?
The ability to spew propaganda would be harmed by a public finding of fallibility! DW must be convicted at all costs!
calling attys..
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
n. in criminal law, the doctrine that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as a forced confession) may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it. For example, as part of a coerced admission made without giving a prime suspect the so-called "Miranda warnings" (statement of rights, including the right to remain silent and what he/she says will be used against them), the suspect tells the police the location of stolen property. Since the admission cannot be introduced as evidence in trial, neither can the stolen property.
Right you are. Not to worry........99% percent of us know exactly where the sickness lives.
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.