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.

[WL-law]

'The Factor' filed a suit against the two lawyers today.

With what on earth standing? O'Reilly may end up eating the costs for this one.

It's not a "suit" because this is not a based on a personal cause-of-action --- it's a "complaint" (small "c") made to the ethics committee that enforces the ethical rules for the state bar. It's therefore in essence a 'request' that the ethics committee open an investigation.

And -- since the complaint is based on the atty's behavior in a criminal (as opposed to civil) action, then the "people" (i.e., any citizen) is really a "party" to the underlying action where the alleged misbehavior occurred.

[bvw]

Juror says that Feldman and Boyce lied to the jury. -- "Raymond Winkowski, Juror, Sep 18, 2002 on National TV: How Could He (Feldman) LIE to Us for 4 Months?"

This speaks awfully well to a hard prejudice and bias against the defense, and/or lines of inquiry that would have been, should have been and were made specifically but not limited to those inquiries into the reckless activities of the van Dams that are most reasonably relevant in abduction cases such as this. That is, it goes to suggesting that the Juror, Winkowski, went into the trial not as the Constitutionally mandated "impartial Juror", but one too full of pre-established conceptions about guilt and the illegitimacy of lines of argument.

[Freedom2specul8]

Oh come on bvw..I know you know better than that. His comments were given after finding out new, albeit unconfirmed revelations. Think about how many jurors come out of the trial, only to find out things that were kept from them...that were negative to the defendant, victim or witnesses.. (IE:prior convictions kept secret) this is just another example of facing reality after their jobs were done.

[marajade]

federal judges don't adjudge DWI cases...

[Freedom2specul8]

NEW THREAD....legal community reacts/responds to our questions. Are they lurking at FR or what?

WESTERFIELD: Pretrial plea bargaining can't be revealed to jury

[bvw]

Too quick, and no doubt, no dread, no allowance -- a prejudiced mindset, one hard to so form in the week since.

If not that, then a very gullible individual all to ready to hug the media line, the mob's view ... once again in that case back to a prejudicial mindset at the start of the trial as that was the mob's view.

[CW_Conservative]

Wouldn't throw around those "weak minded" epithets too much if I were you. Pot calling the kettle black and that sort of thing ....

So your definition of "weak minded" is a person who doesn't blindly believe the media, especially when they quote anonymous sources.

As for his appeal, it would not even be an issue which could be raised on appeal.

I never mentioned anything about an appeal.

[Amore]

No. Since you didn't get the hint, my definition of weak minded is someone who has been posting rather a lot on these threads yet somehow doesn't realize that the events we are discussing occurred well past the possible acquittal stage.

[CW_Conservative]

No. Since you didn't get the hint, my definition of weak minded is someone who has been posting rather a lot on these threads yet somehow doesn't realize that the events we are discussing occurred well past the possible acquittal stage.

I guess it never occurred to you that the reason for my posts might be because I believe an innocent man has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

So make all the comments you like, they are a trifle compared with being unjustly accused and convicted of murder.

[discostu]

Right to representation by a jury isn't suspended just because the person is guilty. There are some challenges that hit the lawyer if he knows his client is guilty, but remember we're going by the legal definition of "know", which basically means if the client TELLS his lawyer he did it there are problems, but we cannot make "assumptions of knowledge", just because a 4 year old with minimal language skills could easily identify the client's guilt does not provide any indication that the lawyer "knows" the client is guilty. One must always remember that our legal system has the goal of "better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent hang", that means that things periodically happen that suck.

[Amore]

Huh? You really are big on nonsequiturs, aren't you? Do you not realize you started this? All I was telling you is that you shouldn't be name calling and casting aspersions on people when you yourself are far from perfect.

[Eva]

At what point in the trial did we hear the testimony from the neice? That is where I made up my mind that he was guilty. Before that I didn't think that the state had proven its case. I just can't remember when that occurred. I do think that the jury must have seen some really horrific porn that we didn't get to see and can't even imagine, that influenced their opinion.

I wouldn't be surprised if Westerfield was in the house before. We had a stalker, who did that. Just came in the house and looked. Actually, he broke into the house. No one would believe us, until he got caught in some of the neighbors houses. He was a juvenile, so it took years before he got any jail time.

I still believe that Westerfield took the girl before Brenda came home from the bar. I don't believe Damon's story about where he was or what he was doing. Maybe he went to bed earlier than he claimed, after smoking more marijuana than he admitted, but I don't think that he was acting as a responsible parent or he would noticed.

[Doc Savage]

"Wasn't acting as a responsible parent?????????????" Exactly what planet have you been living on!? He would have noticed!?

Now I know full well that KIMCHEE would have loved to have had the Demon Seed as her father and Busty Brenda as her Mommy-poo, but you really need to get a life Eva! (Braun??)

[Eva]

Look, Damon admitted to going to the garage to smoke marijuana, what else was he doing? Why didn't he notice the open door before he went to bed? I don't know too many people in So. California who go to bed without checking the locks. I believe that Westerfield took the kid before Brenda even came home, while Damon was supposedly in charge. He must have been brain dead.

[Freedom2specul8]

"We had a stalker, who did that. Just came in the house and looked. Actually, he broke into the house. No one would believe us, until he got caught in some of the neighbors houses. "

I am so sorry to hear that..it's AWFUL! I'm so glad you and your family are ok, he got caught, and he didn't attack anyone etc.. :(

"I do think that the jury must have seen some really horrific porn that we didn't get to see and can't even imagine, that influenced their opinion.

I agree...but you know what..just hearing the screams made me cry. Did you hear them? Oh my gosh..the jurors had to "watch" as well as "listen".

"I still believe that Westerfield took the girl before Brenda came home from the bar. I don't believe Damon's story about where he was or what he was doing. Maybe he went to bed earlier than he claimed, after smoking more marijuana than he admitted, but I don't think that he was acting as a responsible parent or he would noticed. "

That's feasible story. Didn't he admit to drinking some more beer?

[Eva]

No, I didn't even know there was sound with the porn. I think if I had been aware of that, I would have changed my mind about Westerfield alot earlier. I guess that kind of porn is too far out of the norm for me to imagine. You mean you actually heard children screaming?

I can't believe that Mudd would have discounted the reports of screams coming from the motor home, unless there was some kind of deal involved. It seemed as though he was favoring Dusek during the trial, but I guess not.

[Freedom2specul8]

Oh my gosh yes....they were crying and screaming. It was real. The reporters said in one of the scenes the men were holding a prepubescent girl down. Someone (a person who didn't think he was guilty) tried to make it sound like they were cartoons..but the jurors wouldn't have cried over cartoon porn. :(

[FreedomCalls]

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.

Permit me to remind you that:

Rule 5-200 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that: "In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:

(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; . . ."

In addition, Section 6068(d) of the California Business & Professions Code, states that it is the duty of an attorney:
"To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her such means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law."

Well what about the part where it says: "such means only as are consistent with truth"?

Do you have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary? I would really like to know what its definition of `artifice' is.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Do you have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary? I would really like to know what its definition of `artifice' is.

I tried search on Nolo.com, but "artifice" turned up no entries.

My only point is that, to me, it is not apparent that the attorneys knew for certain of Westerfield's guilt when they were "brokering" their plea agreement. I stated my reasons for thinking this in my earlier post. I may ultimately be proven wrong, but from O'Reilly's characterization that fact is not proven, in my opinion.

If the attorneys did not have direct knowledge of Westerfield's guilt, then advancing an alternate theory of the crime would not be inconsistent with truth.

[FreedomCalls]

If the attorneys did not have direct knowledge of Westerfield's guilt, then advancing an alternate theory of the crime would not be inconsistent with truth.

But that's what the whole case turns on. They DID have direct knowledge of his guilt because the proffer was that Westerfield would tell the police where the body was in exchange for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge.