The scarey thing is that we apparently now live in your world, where if you stop to help a child with a bleeding nose, and she later turns up missing, you can face the death penalty for your kindness.
I liked the Constitution so much better.
No, that wouldn't happen. Because you would take the stand and explain that to the jury. Westerfield's refusal to take the stand left the jury with the fact that the evidence that they saw was UNEXPLAINED!
Do you think Westerfield helped Danielle with a bloody nose? If you do, I've got some stock in Arthur Anderson I'd like to sell you.
You may be free to refuse to take the stand. That is your constitutional right. But if you leave evidence unexplained by your refusal to take the stand, then you deserve to be convicted. Period. End of Argument.
The jury had the evidence and Westerfield refused to refute it in his own words.
I just hope to God that the Avilla jury isn't composed of fruitcakes like you.
I liked the Constitution so much better.
You should be awfully angry that the defendant had such a careless attorney, who failed to find the means, to introduce your plausible explanation.
The man got his trial, as provided under the Constitution. He has appeal rights. He was (speedily, as he elected) tried by a jury, of his peers, all as under the Constitution.
You have NO ACCESS to the evidence the jury had. Twelve ordinary people were presented with ALL the evidence, EVERY BIT. They were privy to ALL the arguments from both sides. They deliberated ten days, sifting and examining everything.
They concluded that the man was GUILTY, and their findings point to the fact that they may well believe he ought to die for what he did.
Yet you continue to spew your verbal diarrhea. You and Bill Clinton both mouth these platitudes about your respect for "the Constitution," yet you care not one whit about JUSTICE.
I am SO GLAD I can stuff this in your arrogant faces!
That for you, you misbegotten son of the Democrat party.