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.

[hopespringseternal]

This cuts both ways. I have seen cases where prosecutors knowingly exhibited Ahab-like obsession with convicting people they knew were innocent of the crime at hand.

One particularly nasty skank knew without a doubt that the guy would be acquitted by any reasonable jury and went after him anyway. She didn't just use her office to get a trial, she used it to torment the guy and drag the case out as long as possible in order to destroy his reputation and break him financially.

When he was finally acquitted and the newsies were hammering her for it, her response was something to the effect of, "Hey, he got acquitted, so the system worked for him."

[cynicalman]

But he can try to place doubt by attacking the govt's witnesses, and asking , i.e., whether the govt explored other theories of the crime. In that vein he may suggest, rhetorically, what those alternatives might be.

I disagree!. He can and must challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution. But with regard to alternative theories that are not based on any facts appears to crossing the line. The bug experts were proper witnesses but to suggest that the vandam lifestyle had or could have had something to do with her death crosses the line when there is no such evidence to suggest that and with the knowledge that your client is guilty.

[rintense]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you believe he was not guilty.

No, I didn't watch the trial nor did I have many opinions about it. I based my opinion on what the lawyers did, according the statute raised and questioned by Bill. Westerfield being guilty or not has nothing to do with my horrible dislike of the lawyers actions.

I put my faith in the justice system and I accept the verdict.

Perhaps Bill's rant was a bit biased. He stated over and over he believed the guy was guilty. But he also jumped on the condemn the VanDamn's bandwagon on a few occasions. Do I buy all the stuff Bill dishes out? Nope. Don't buy some of Rush's, Haniity's, Dubya's, and others as well. Isn't life grand?

[trebb]

I also agree that Bill was right - if ALL attorneys had to tell the truth, there would be fewer scum bags walking and probably fewer innocent folks getting convicted. Rush put it wee once when he said the system was designed with the precept that it was better to let a guilty person go, than to convict an innocent person....I agree with that, but lawyers carry the game way too far (great shades of OJ..).

[Jaded]

The source was "Law Enforcement sources". No names. I wonder if Prosecution was offering a plea to bring closure to the family doesn't Feldman have a legal obligation to trot the paperwork to his client?

This so contradicts the story that Keyser and Ott were visting or trying to shortly after the body was discovered. The sheriff's dept had to summon Feldman which would mean he wasn't there trying to broker a deal. So which is it?

[bvw]

On a free market basis of philosophy plea bargaining has an certain attraction, yet I am distressed by it even after that for it seems to set up such situations as was had here (that is reportedly had here).

I tend to think Justice is not a bargainable quality. The pre-trial process of plea bargaining is fine in civil torts, but in a capital case -- murder, rape, kidnapping, assualt, robbery, etc., it requires an exchange of information that is best kept within the framework of a trial, and can be poisonous outside of that framework. Such a poisoning seems to have occured -- if the plea bargain reports are correct -- in this case.

[rintense]

Well, to me, the backing qualifier of justice is truth, not deception.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

So you are outraged at what the lawyers did, but you aren't sure they did it? Is that what you are saying?

If this story is inaccurate, what did they do?

[Marysecretary]

He thinks they should be sent to Alaska and do hard time digging ditches or some sort of activity.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

The sheriff's dept had to summon Feldman which would mean he wasn't there trying to broker a deal. So which is it?

Most excellent point !! This fact alone casts a huge shadow of doubt over the validity of this rumor.

[WL-law]

But with regard to alternative theories that are not based on any facts appears to crossing the line.

I believe the rule is that the atty has to have a "good-faith belief" in the guilt of another person before he can bring evidence (his own witnesses) to suggest it.

However, in cross-examining the prosecution witness he would have broader latitude.

[Jaded]

So what about the Unidentified DNA comingled with Danielle's blood on her blanket found on her bed? The unidentified prints on her dresser, doorframe, banister, garage door, slider and table out back? What of the unidentified hair found on her body? None of this matched the convicted. It was not tested past Westerfield.

Again, I say, had the prosecution proved that Westerfield was in the VD house, or at Dehesa or that Danielle was in the RV or SUV that weekend we would not be having this discussion. BTW, Febreze is NOT that good.

[blackbart1]

The name "Cockran" also flies to mind!

[justshe]

Do you have any knowledge of the California Bar...and how it might react in a case like this? I guess my 'CA prejudices' would expect not much more than a slap on the wrist...IF it was determined that this atty did do something wrong.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

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

Are you trying to say something in regards to this thread? Or are you just ranting?

[Isle of sanity in CA]

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.

You misunderstand. In this case the defense apparently knew that the client was guilty..

[Jaded]

They could just go on TV and beg for money like the last high-profile attorney who got smacked.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Again, I say, had the prosecution proved that Westerfield was in the VD house, or at Dehesa or that Danielle was in the RV or SUV that weekend we would not be having this discussion.

Yep......

Then let's talk about the absence of critical 35mm photos, David Faulkner, 180-Frank, drug deals, unsupervised children, Brenda's concerns about Barb with Danielle, and Damon's proximity coincidence to Adam Walsh and Michael Negrete (sp?) (and that eerie sketch). The list goes on and on..........

[gcruse]

You misunderstand. In this case the defense
apparently knew that the client was guilty..

Suppose they were absolutely certain, yet
the perp wanted to plead not guilty.  Should
his attorneys refuse to defend him, knowing
their job would be to introduce doubt into
the jury's minds, knowing that doubt would
be a lie?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I'm amazed by the comments of some folks here that want to throw the Constitution out simply because the defendant and his attornies are reprehensible slime buckets.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? He must be proven guilty before a jury.

He was tried and convicted and sentenced justly. But before that, he was innocent regardless of what his defense attornies knew or didn't know.

Yes, it sucks. But we all would want the same protection if we were on trial.

Flame me if you like. I'm used to it. I just calls 'em the way I sees 'em.