Skip to comments.
WESTERFIELD GUILTY!
SS
Posted on 08/21/2002 11:24:33 AM PDT by maeng
JUST ANNOUNCED, WESTERFIELD GUILTY IN VAN DAM CASE.
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: vandam; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
1
posted on
08/21/2002 11:24:33 AM PDT
by
maeng
To: maeng
With Special Circumstances, although he's still eligible for the Death Penalty.
2
posted on
08/21/2002 11:26:31 AM PDT
by
Bad~Rodeo
To: Bad~Rodeo
Special Cirmumstances MEANS he IS eligible for the death penalty...that has always been my understanding at least?
3
posted on
08/21/2002 11:27:16 AM PDT
by
Lucas1
To: maeng
I was listening to the "bug" evidence in the trial which amused me since it was something similar to what was on a CSI program (a copycat attorney).
But the forensic evidence was overwhelming.
I'm pleased with the verdict...it's one less sicko that is on the streets.
Sac
To: Sacajaweau
Quite a bit of the defense arguments were 'amusing' in a dark sort of way, especially how they blamed the parents for leading a lifestyle that put their children at risk -- as though that has any bearing on who actually killed Danielle or wether or not Westerfield was guilty.
5
posted on
08/21/2002 11:32:05 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
To: maeng
Good. About time.
To: Bad~Rodeo
what was the verdict on the porn charge?
7
posted on
08/21/2002 11:34:01 AM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: maeng
Curious, my post WESTERFIELD GUILTY WAS POSTED AT 11:16 but was deleted after 10 posts. What gives AM?
To: maeng; Vic3O3
OOOrah! Give this freak the gas chamber and let him burn in h*ll!
Semper Fi!
9
posted on
08/21/2002 11:35:08 AM PDT
by
dd5339
To: Dimensio
Yes, of COURSE the fact that the parents were having multiple strangers over for drug and sex orgies was not "putting their children at risk". How silly of those of us who thought so- but thanks for setting us straight.
Anyway, good result- a California jury manages to get one right, against all odds...
To: maeng
I'll wager that it was one juror that was holding out the whole time, and the others worked to convince him/her.....
11
posted on
08/21/2002 11:35:18 AM PDT
by
ken5050
To: Lucas1
Hmmm, scratching head. Have to research it,being Left-Coast law and all
To: Valpal1
Guilty on all 3 charges
To: Valpal1
GUILTY!
14
posted on
08/21/2002 11:39:17 AM PDT
by
wndycndy
To: RANGERAIRBORNE
Yes, of COURSE the fact that the parents were having multiple strangers over for drug and sex orgies was not "putting their children at risk". LOL! Absolutely. IMO, the Van Damm's lifestyle was all the reasonable doubt necessary to aquit ANYONE of this crime. I'm not sure I could have come back with a guilty verdict, had I been on the jury.
To: RANGERAIRBORNE
Er, I wasn't arguing that the defense argument was false, I was only pointing out that even if the statement is true, it would not have any bearing on Westerfield's guilt or innocence. Danielle van Dam was murdered. Whomever killed her is the murderer. That her parents might have put her in an at-risk situation would not make the one who killed her any less of a murderer.
16
posted on
08/21/2002 11:42:53 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
To: Bad~Rodeo
In order to be able to get a death penalty, when the prosecution files the case and state it is with "special circumstances." If they file a case without asking for "special circumstances" they would not get a death penalty. Perhaps you were thinking of a phrase like "mitigating circumstances."
To: maeng
Okay, now let us cast the TV movie:
Westerfield: David Ogden Styers (would have been Jack Nicholson but subject is probably sore after his days with Roman Polanski)
Mrs. Van Dam: Heather Locklear or Anna Nicole Smith
Mr. Van Dam: Doesn't really matter
Danille: Olsen Twins or Britany Spears
Defense attorney: Steve Buscemi or Tony Schalub
Prosecutor: Some rehashed LA Law actor And Martin Sheen as the man who blames it all on the Republicans.
18
posted on
08/21/2002 11:45:14 AM PDT
by
pikachu
To: southern rock
I agree with you- the defense HAD to bring up the parents deviant lifestyle, because it introduced the possibility that any one of their "guests" could have committed this crime.
When the jurors are interviewed by the press(something I have always opposed, BTW), I think you will find that the childs palmprint found near the bed in his camper was THE deciding factor- absent that evidence, he would have walked!
To: Dimensio
Well, I went back and reread your post #5- and I can't interpret it any other way than as some sort of dismissive attitude towards the parents miserably poor judgement and abberancy. I am glad to see you backtracking so quickly, though- it shows that, at some level, you know were wrong.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 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