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]

I am really not trying to simply be argumentative, but what is this scenario to which you keep referring? I watched the entire trial and never heard a "scenario" presented by the defense.

On whose and what information have you decided there was something tantamount to a confession? To my knowledge, all of this hyperventilating is traced to one lone newspaper and an UNCONFIRMED story.

I don't get it, unless you know something I don't.

[rintense]

But Eve, the trial is OVER. Nothing more can be done regarding the trial. By law, the lawyers and the prosecution can not release details of any plea bargains soley for the reasons you posted. Imagine if this had been released before the verdict...

[rintense]

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

We're idiots because we agree with one of his viewpoints? Um, ok. And Southpaw knows I am not an idiot... we are freeper friends yet can still respectfully disagree about many things- this being one of them. But, if you want to call those who don't believe as you do idiots, go right ahead...

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

The trial is over now, so why has no one come forward to confirm?

There was no scenario suggested by bringing in the lifestyle. The lifestyle was and is entangled in that night and all things leading to that night.

The people in and around the van Dam home that night were fellow swingers and drug suppliers. Excuse me, but I consider those things relevant.

Apparently the judge saw some significance too since he allowed it. Maybe O'Reilly should sue Judge Mudd also.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I never called you an idiot. It was not necessary to ping me.

[cherry]

"The actions of Westerfield's lawyers, in my opinion, were completely unethical. As such, they should be held accountable for their actions. And that is the basis of my support for O'Reilly's rant."

Feldman was not unethical and what he did was called his JOB....a job so distasteful yet necessary in our society..

thousands and thousands of criminals give confessions before trial but they still go to trial....example....Yates case in Tacoma.....

Feldman did not put his client on the stand to lie,he himself never ever once mentioned that DW was innocent....check the transcript....

If anything. the prosecution is unethical.....why did they not push the plea bargain even after the body was found....and by the way...how was the body discovered?....

for the state to put the family of the victim thru that plus put the children of the perp on the stand to humilitate them is beyond ethics....

and if you will recall, it was Dusek who had the van dams on the stand...not Feldman...Dusek did it....Dusek also thought it necessary to humiliate the perp's son on the stand...Feldman if you recall did not redirect....

personally , I think the state should provide for justice without a vendetta....and that is what I think happened here in this case.....remember....the DA is up for ELECTION!!!

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

the DA is up for ELECTION!!!

BINGO !!!!! .....and he has some opposition this time.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

If ethics is a concern (and I am not saying it should not be) doesn't it apply to both sides? Is it not extremely important that prosecutors respect proper procedure and adhere to a standard above reproach?

If so and the story is true AND came from the DA's office back in February, it seems we have another egregious violation on the side of the State. I hope the same concern is applied to this matter.

Remember that these situations affect us all since we never know who the next "accused" might be.

[Lancey Howard]

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

LOFL!!! Yeah, sure. Say hello to OJ for me if you happen to see him on the links!

Actually, I certainly acknowledge that our system is the best system ever devised. It could definitely be improved if some of the laughingstock elements were removed. You know, "The killer's confession is inadmissable because he was high on PCP when his rights were read to him." But what I said was, "People who depend on lawyers and judges and cops for 'justice' are fools." The key words there are "depend" and "justice". I stand by that.

Regards,
LH

[cinFLA]

I don't condone the Van Dam's lifestyle, but they weren't the ones on trial for murder. Nothing they do in their private life is a justification for the murder of their child.

I agree that it should not be part of the trial since the defense knew his client was guilty. However, if he had a reasonable alternate theory believing his client was innocent, the fact that there house was an "open party house" and they frequently locked themselves in the garage to get potted while leaving the kids alone and this information was common knowlege with acqaintances, it could be used. Whatever, I believe everyone should be aware that certain types of behaviour lead to increased risks. In some circles this is considered child neglect.

[cinFLA]

For the record, I don't think the justice systems need to be overhauled. Just hold the repugnant few accountable for their actions to set an example for the rest. Sounds a bit like corporate responsibility...

I agree, but a little tweaking might help.

[rintense]

No, I pinged you because I know you don't think I'm an idiot- contrary to Eva's statement. Well, at least I think I did... ;)

[cinFLA]

O'Reilly made a huge issue of something that has not been verified. I think that is an outrage, in and of itself.

O'Reilly reported the issue. It was the lawyers that fell all over themselves defending Feldman that has riled O'Reilly and many like myself.

[rintense]

Ok, by trying to say that the VanDamn's lifestyle was the reason their daughter was killed. That is the scenario they tried to sell the jury. The jury who was on O'Reilly said the same thing and that the lawyer was very, very good. And that's where the problem lies. The lawyers knew how the crime was committed and who did it. To falsely mislead the jury into thinking it was someone else's fault is where the breach of ethics comes in. Perhaps I'm not explaining it correct. If you can catch the O'Reilly rerun, please do so. Judge Andrew does a nice job of summarizing the code.

[cinFLA]

Feldman did not put his client on the stand to lie,he himself never ever once mentioned that DW was innocent....check the transcript....

There you go again, dropping the word "innocent". Feldman tried his darndest to get his client free. He said that the evidence would prove his client did not dispose of the body. At every turn (almost) he tried to confuse the jury and introduce doubt by providing misleading scenarios that he knew to be false.

[rintense]

Where did you hear they had this information in February? I must have missed that. And yes, I do agree that if the information came out in Feb. from the DA's office, then they should be held accountable as well.

[Eva]

It may have been a smear, but it was not a lie. Westerfield WAS the "stranger" who was attracted to the Van Dam home because of the promiscuous reputation. The parents were responsible in a way for what happened, not directly, but still responsible. That may be irrelevant, but it is the truth, not a lie. It was the responsibility of the prosecution to eliminate all possible perpetrators, they didn't do that, thus leaving the opening for Feldman. If the prosecution had vetted their case better, Feldman would not have been able to make that claim.

[It's me]

South, what do you think of Dumanis?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I'd have to do some research to find it, but it was reported back then and dismissed; more or less.

I need to repeat that every bit of this ethics hand wringing is based on the "confession" being an absolute. If it isn't and the rumor is false (which may very well be), this is all moot.

So we are really back to square one. Is it not necessary to prove the premise first? If there was no knowledge of guilt, this whole argument is an exercise in futility. At this point we have a news story.....nothing more.

I assume someone from the DA's office is going to have to step up to the plate and lay open his or her own lack of character. That may be a whole other can of worms.

My bet is that Paul Pfingst doesn't want his office scrutinized in this pre-election time and it may be the DA himself that wards off an investgation.

[Eva]

Hey, I didn't say that those who were following O'Reilly's lead were idiots, I said that he was an idiot. You are drawing your own conclusions again, a rush to judgement.

Of course in this case the prosecution could assume that Westerfield was guilty if he offered to tell where the body could be found, but what if Westerfield did the kidnapping and someone else killed her? Maybe he shared her with a friend and now that person is going to go free to kill again, all because Dusek was too lazy to go any further with his investigation after he knew Westerfield was involved.