An Absolute Disgrace in the Murder Trial of Danielle Van Dam

foxnews.com ^ | Bill O'Reilly

[bvw]

Forgive me for daring question the unimpeachable wisdom of the State and the magnificant bureaucracies that make it up. I should know my betters!

[rintense]

Excellent points. In fact, if I recall, O'Reilly himself questioned the parent's lifestyle.

[gcruse]

as a lawyer, you can still provide the best
defense possible without compromising your ethics

I applaud your ethos and agree with you.  However,
I have been on both ends of the stick, and prosecutors
use 'artifice' every bit as much as defense attorneys do.  I don't
know how flagrant it has to be to be actionable, but
with the stuff that goes on every day in the courts, this
one doesn't stand out at all, unfortunately.

[demsux]

I lost interest in No'Reilly after about 2 shows. He's a blow-hard that appeals to people that can't think for themselves, much like whorealdo, zahn, etc.

[Salvey]

Precisely why I retired from the bar early. Good riddance to them all; may they rot in hell.

[justshe]

Seems like you have an admirer....NOT! Interesting that he is more determined to attack you, then debate the topic of the thread. His POV, literally, is NOT on the ball....lol.

I saw the show last night. O'R was even MORE upset than the night he interviewed WSJ editor.

I agree...he was right on the money.

[rintense]

Well, I'm sure on the whole, lawyers are pretty ethical (did I just say that???). But it's the ambulance chasers, in it for a buck and fame, etc. types, that make all laywers look like sharks. Happens in most professions, I'm sure.

And yes, maybe Bill is using the high profile cases as his basis for wanting to overhaul the justice system. But what about the thousands of cases where the law is followed and justice is served correctly? 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...

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

It's difficult to join a thread where I find myself in disagreement with people with whom I usually agree.

Many who have weighed in on this trial only know what the media has reported; they did not watch it from beginning to end.

Furthermore, this story HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED and that fact was emphasized last night on local San Diego news. Since when do we fall all over ourselves with UNCONFIRMED reports and treat them as gospel truth?

The van Dams, themselves, were asked about this story in an interview yesterday. They said they knew nothing of it and "you can't believe everything you hear on the news."

There have been a variety of opinions about the guilt or innocence of David Westerfield, but unless an individual actually witnessed the trial in its entirety, the opinion is only a parroting of the news.

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

[rintense]

Well, it's like attacking the messenger and not the message. O'Reilly gets that quite a bit, as does Rush, Hannity, Buchanan, etc... There are, however, some on FR who will challenge the message while questioning the messenger. Now those are the interesting debates.

[rintense]

Well, *if* he is right, then I am outraged. *If* he has blown this way out of proportion and it can be proven as such, then I will apologize, and then BLAST O'Reilly for not reporting the facts- only spin. I give credit where it's do, and call a spade a spade.

[Mr. Bird]

So, we all agree the lawyers are scum, but that's not unusual. Did they break the law? Seems to me that the defense is given lots of leeway to propose alternative theories. How their knowledge of the client's guilt changes this, I have no idea.

Once the sicko decided to plead not-guilty, weren't his lawyers obligated to do what they could to defend them? Defense attorneys cast aspersions on the virtue of rape victims all the time. I'm sure most can also calculate the probability of their client being guilty.

If you forbid an attorney from presenting alternate theories, however tasteless they may be, you will have willfully ignorant advocates, opening the door to reversals based on inadequate representation.

I suppose I'll disagree with the O'Reilly on the legal aspects, but it was good TV. I was waiting for his head to explode, a la "Scanners".

[WL-law]

Bill also mentioned the statute that was violated.

ah,..no -- the ethical rules for lawyers are not "statutes". And so violation of a rule is not breaking the law.

These are rules of conduct that accompany the privilege of the license to practice, and violation can lead to loss of license, in a worst-case scenario.

[rintense]

If I may ask... were you able to live with the decisions and actions you made? To me, this is the quandry- when what you do completely goes against who you are and what you believe. Sounds like you made the right decision for you.

[Nephi]

Artifice in this context means falsifiedor 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.

O'Reilly's contention is that what the lawyers posited was not a theory; it was a lie and O'Reilly proved that they knew the truth.

You see, we are in the unique position of knowing that the lawyers knew Westerfield was guilty because they were arranging for deal which included revealing where the body was.

I don't believe that O'Reilly would argue with your position if he believed the attorneys didn't know, but we know the attorneys knew and they fabricated a lie to plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

Challenging the admissibility/interpretation of the evidence, the expertise of expert witnesses is part of their constitutional duty, not creating scenarios out of thin air, in my view.

[rintense]

Well... if Bill Clinton gets disbarred for lying under oath, *if* the Westerfield lawyers did violate the statute, then what would their punishment be?

[Political Junkie Too]

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.

Aren't we beyond "belief" here? The client confessed to his lawyer, hence the plea bargain attempt.

Just because he has confided guilt to his attorney makes no difference, if he pleads not guilty to the charges.

I don't know the law, but I thought a lawyer is not allowed to suborn perjury. If a defendent pleads not guilty when the lawyer knows the defendent to be guilty (through confession), and then the lawyer aids the defendent in that false defense, then isn't the lawyer culpable for his part in enabling the falsehoods?

-PJ

[Mr. Bird]

they fabricated a lie to plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury

But they make up crap all time! If this is true, and the actions of the lawyers were illegal, why didn't the prosecution demand sanctions at the time???? Obviously THEY knew, because the reports say they were plea bargaining, right?

What if they didn't know he was guilty? Could they THEN fabricate the lie? These arguments against the defense don't seem to coincide with the desired spririt of justice, with its attendant vigorous defense.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I give credit where it's do, and call a spade a spade.

As do I.....and I am usually one to detest defense attorneys. This was not a typical trial or a typical "criminal".

Did you watch? Do you know the pertinent details? I do not ask sarcastically........I simply want to know on what information your opinion is based.

This story was first told/leaked back in February and died back then. Funny how it surfaces again when Steven Feldman says he will not be speaking publicly while he pursues appeals, etc.

I don't know about you, but I observe all media with a jaundiced eye.

There has been an abundance of inaccurate reporting in this case and I can't imagine anything has changed just because it has ended.

[rintense]

Oh yeah, I saw it. The first guy Bill had on said Bill was completely wrong, but Bill kept hammering away and the lawyer had no way of refuting what Bill said other than he was misinterpreting the statute. The next lawyer said Bill was correct. Oh the irony... the courts may have to decide this one! LOL. Will it be up to the California BAR to decide if there has been a violation? Not sure what the procedures are in a case like this.

[gcruse]

Attorney client privilege is there to allow the perp to spill his guts to get the best defense and for the attorney to defend him whether he knows the perp is guility or not.