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.

[bvw]

Something a modern royalist like rintense would not understand. Liberty.

[gcruse]

 He was spot on in his
assessment and his anger is completely justified

No, he isn't.  Whether a defense attorney believes
his client to be guilty or not, he has to provide him
with the best defense he is capable of providing.
O'Reilly is showing massive ignorance.

The state has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that a defendant is guilty.  Just because
he has confided guilt to his attorney makes
no difference, if he pleads not guilty to the
charges.

[YaYa123]

I watched O'Reilly's head explode last night. Great television, and I've no doubt his anger and disgust is real. But his argument is beside the point to me... I don't know from nuttin bout no stinking defense attorneys. What interests me is how anyone could still think Westerfield is innocent, after we've been told he wanted to cop a plea.

24 hours after the story appeared in the San Diego paper, and nobody, but nobody has denied it. No body!! Not even an anonymous source speaking on behalf of the defense.

The world's goobers can argue OJ's innocence all they like, but Westerfield's guilt seems to me, a sure thing.

[Chemnitz]

Good for O'Reilly.

[rintense]

Yes, quite obviously you are a much better American than I. Folks like me have ruined the country and should probably move to Canada.

Next time, before spouting off, why not do a bit of research before practicing the politics of personal distruction. But then again, that might be too hard for you. It's always easier to condemn folks without knowing your facts.

[rintense]

Well, if the statute that Bill cited is true, then these lawyers have willingly violated the oath they took. True, this isn't about the failure of the judicial system, but a failure of lawyers to do their job in an ethical manner.

[bvw]

What is the basis for your support of O'Reilly's rave?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Rule 5200 states, "A lawyer shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law." An artifice means making something up.

Artifice in this context means falsified or fabricated evidence. Positing a alternative theory of the crime is one way to force the state to prove its own theory and not "artifice," in my opinion.

[MrB]

The lawyers have a duty to be truthful, but they also must do their best to defend their client.
If a defense lawyer does not provide the best defense possible (short of unethical behavior), the defendant could get free due to a mistrial.
Now that would be an outrage.

Don't misconstrue my comment here. These guys were unethical, and should be held accountable.

[cynicalman]

The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. Just because he has confided guilt to his attorney makes no difference, if he pleads not guilty to the charges.

An attorney must do his best to make sure the prosecution proves it case beyond a reasonable doubt. The attorney can do this by challenging every bit of evidence BUT that means making the prosecution prove it case not making up or suggesting to the jury a set of facts that is known to the attorney to be false and misleading.

In the VanDam case the attorney could have challanged the DNA testing, the credibility of the witnesses, the method of collecting the evidence. But knowing he was guilty what was relevancy of the VanDam lifestyle.?

[rintense]

I disagree. Would justice have been served if the jury found him not guilty, and this SAME report had been released? See, I believe, as a lawyer, you can still provide the best defense possible without compromising your ethics and the oath you swore. Westerfield's lawyers did nothing remotely close to this. Of course, this is probably why I never became a laywer.

[McGavin999]

Modern royalist? Oh, how clever. I'll bet you're one of those totally brilliant anarchists aren't you? Pretty easy to spot these days, especially when posting with people who have average or better IQ's. You're the ones posting moronic posts, babbling incoherently, and generally making a public laughingstock out of yourselves.

Good job, keep it up you provide some much needed laughter these days.

[NautiNurse]

Looks like O'Reilly isn't finished with the subject yet. He has one of the jurors scheduled to be on the show tonight.

[rintense]

Completely agree. Just basically stated the same thing.

[MJY1288]

"Something a modern royalist like rintense would not understand. Liberty."

Another mental midget who feels the need to give someone an idiot lesson about "liberty". And you useless libertarians wonder why you're irrelevant.

[bvw]

Oh and by that sword hanging over their head, few the lawyer would dare argue a case where perchance he might be strung up for the state's or the mob's view that he should have known his client was guilty. That's a lot of cases, and many the innocent riding on the rail you carry by making it.

[djreece]

Amen, O'Reilly.

It's time to bring justice back to the court system.

[rintense]

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.

[STD]

Gotta have a brain for a hemmorhage

[McLynnan]

O'Reilly almost stroked out and he had a blood vessel in his temple that was visibly throbbing. He's absolutely right. Defense attorneys are obligated to put on the best possible defense for their clients, but they are NOT permitted to fabricate stories about other parties to the case. Westerfield's attorneys knew he was guilty, yet they blatantly pointed the finger of blame at the Van Dam's and their houseguests because they couldn't find a feasible reason to explain away the mountan of forensic evidence. 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.