An Absolute Disgrace in the Murder Trial of Danielle Van Dam

foxnews.com ^ | Bill O'Reilly

[rintense]

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.

An absolute disgrace in the murder trial of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo.

According to a report in The San Diego Union Tribune, convicted killer David Westerfield's attorneys, Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce, knew their client was guilty.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Very reasonable and truthful points, Eva. Thank you.

[Eva]

I can't believe that so many posters on FreeRepublic would be so willing to deny justice to anyone. Our system may be flawed, but it's the best one in the world. I am very disappointed in the emotional rather than thoughtful reaction to this.

O'Reilly just showed a FOX reporter, harassing the defense attornies. That's exactly what happened in the Timothy McVeigh case, then it stirred up public harrassment and led to the defense resigning. If McVeigh had had better defense, we might have found out more about the mid-eastern
connection and even prevented 9/11. The public cannot be allowed to interfere in the defense of an accused person. That would be mob rule, not American justice.

[lawgirl]

I read about this yesterday and thought "why is their bar not taking action?" They should be disbarred. It is one thing if you don't ASK your client if he is guilty and can then defend him, but if they knew then they should have recused themselves. Or something.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I cannot believe that O'Reilly is filing a complaint against Feldman and Boyce and they are now calling this reported plea bargaining, a confession.

This ought to be interesting. Where's the proof? Is someone from the DA's office going to come forward and admit leaking this? What a total crock. O'Reilly is ridiculous!!

This will cost the taxpayers' money and I can't imagine anything will come of it.

Does anyone think Feldman is stupid and doesn't know the law? Would he open himself up to being disbarred? Get real, O'Reilly.

[Eva]

O'Reilly is an idiot and I am afraid that an awful lot of posters are following his lead.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Jack Ruby was seen to kill Lee Harvey Oswald on television. Should he have been denied representation in a murder trial? Would a court-appointed attorney then be indulging in a high degree of risk to his license to practice law because he was defending a guilty client?

Did he try saying in court that Ruby DIDN'T do it? If so, then he was wrong (not to mention stupid.) The only risk would be a) if the attorney knew the client was guilty and b)the attorney clearly claimed in court that his client didn't do it. An insanity defense would be okay or any other similar defense - "Yes, my client committed the act, BUT..."

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

O'Reilly is an idiot

I agree. He is very full of himself and gets caught up in his own hype.

Does he think that he somehow caught Feldman off guard?

Doesn't he suppose that the people involved would be filing complaints if there was valid reason?

This appears to be a foolish and cheap publicity stunt. He hasn't suddenly uncovered something that was previously missed. Sheesh !!!!

[gcruse]

I suppose I would have gone right along with you up until the OJ case. Talk about arguing an impossible case. OJ knew it too.
That's why he took off for the border. It's all in what you can get the jury to believe.

[ladyinred]

Right on Rintense. That slime defense attorney should be brought up on charges. The ethics that are supposed to be employed in trials have gone out the window. No wonder there are so many predators loose on the street. This is just despicable behavior on the part of his attorney.

[blam]

O'Reilly bump. ('The Factor' filed a suit against the two lawyers today.)

[Eva]

You are way off base. The defense attorney did his job, he held the prosecution to the highest standard. The prosecution left the holes in the case. Feldman never lied, he never defended Westerfield, he only pointed out the holes in the prosecution case. There are still unanswered questions regarding the possibility of the body being moved by an accomplice, which the prosecution didn't bother to pursue because they knew that Westerfield was guilty. Maybe that accomplice is going free because Dusek didn't do as good a job as he should have.

Westerfield was the stranger that was lured to the house by the Van Dams' reputation for promiscuity . The timeline and the bug evidence were at question because of the prosecution's own shortcomings.

Would you really want any less than the highest level of reliability of prosecution on a death penalty case? I wouldn't.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I would like to read the basis of the supposed lawsuit/complaint by O'Reilly.

I'm guessing it has to predicated on reports from undisclosed sources. Does O'Reilly have firsthand knowledge of anything regarding this case?

How does that work and should it? Can I go file a lawsuit against someone based on a rumor I heard, with nothing else to show? Is O'Reilly going to hold up the UT as if it's the Bible and say, "It says so right here" ?

It is discouraging to see how even here, the hysteria picks up momentum. Imagine that all comments supporting O'Reilly are based on an unsubstantiated story. Is it any wonder that the media controls the minds of America?

[rintense]

No, I am outraged that they did what they did, regardless of whether it is against some code. They knowingly used an untrue story to mislead jurors when they knew the cold hard facts of the case. For me, it all comes down to ethics.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

What untrue story?

[rintense]

No, I won't flame you. Correct, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, if the lawyers have a confession on record, they can not willfully mislead the jury to believing the crime occurred another way or was committed by someone else- their job is to make the government prove beyond a shadow of doubt that their client is guilty by discrediting the evidence- not by bringing up a brand new scenario that they know for a fact is not true. And that's where the problem lies.

Judge Andrew Napolitano was on Bill O this evening and made a very good summary of why what these lawyers did was wrong. Both he and Bill O are composing a formal complaint to the California/San Diego BAR Assoc. Of course, they showed footage of reporters trying to get the lawyers side of the story, and they did the 'tell it to the hand' routine. I'd be very interested in hearing what they have to say about all this. But I doubt we'll hear them.

[rintense]

Did you hear any phony scenarios by the defense?

Yes. They tried to make the VanDamn's lifestyle and friends the guilty party. And that is where the breach of ethics comes into play.

[ladyinred]

I am sooo not off base!
I believe that everyone deserves the best defense possible, and that is not what I said. I said there are certain ethics, and in fact rules and laws governing defense attorneys. Rintense clearly posted one of them that applies here. To smear those parents, and accuse them of causing the death of their daughter when he clearly KNEW his client was guilty is despicable, and perhaps the Bar needs to attend to this.
I am not off base, I am stating the facts.

[rintense]

By law, the lawyers and the prosecution can not reveal details of any bargaining until the trial is over.

[rintense]

Correct. From what Judge Andrew said this evening, if the lawyers feel that their client's confession will hinder their ability to defend him, they should recuse. The next lawyer will start over from scratch, and not know anything of any confession.

[rintense]

People who depend on lawyers and judges and cops for "justice" are fools.

So, you are in essence saying you have no faith in the American judicial system?