Replies

Guys, guys, I meant out of this thread. I didn't mean out of Freep. But c'mon, we're in the 600s, by now all that are left are the people who are altogether too intrigued by this.

Re trying a porn charge with a murder charge: you can do that. There's nothing unconstitutional or prejudicial about it even if the two weren't related. If I rob a store and then I go out the next day and kill a puppy, there is absolutely no reason that prosecutors can't bring those two charges together in one case. The rationale and reasons for "severance," as lawyers call it, create a very narrow exception in the law that isn't present here. Westerfield's guilty of both murder and porn. The jury didn't have to decide if they were related.

I strongly suspect that those of you who are even suggesting that perhaps Westerfield wasn't into porn are going to eating your words in the penalty phase: bet we'll find out more then. But even here there was enough for 12 citizens to find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

All you people who think I've been sane and agree that Westerfield is guilty, hear this: there's a time-honored tradition of respecting jury verdicts. That's why although I disagree with the OJ verdict, I don't spend a lot of breadth criticizing it. I think that we all have to respect jury verdicts and that it hurts the integrity of the legal system for everyone to pretend they should be the 13th juror. I think this trial was fair. I think all citizens should respect the verdict. I don't think a jury verdict should be the opening phase in an ongoing debate. The jury has spoken. All the rest remains for the court of appeals. If you disagree with the way that works, well, you could try to change it. Posting here in cyberspace won't change anything though.