Westerfield's Death-Row Letters

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | May 3, 2003 | Alex Roth

[sinkspur]

Why does this matter so much to you? Are you ashamed to admit you might be wrong about Westerfield?

I'm wrong lots of times, and I admit it when I am. Why, I've been wrong twice today already, right here on Free Republic.

It's just a website, and we're all having a good time.

Nothing you, or Jaded, or any of your "free David" advocates do are going to get him out of jail.

And you don't seem to be convincing any other folks around here, either.

But, have fun.

[demsux]

Here's O'Reilly and Napolito? discussing the plea deal:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86809,00.html

Of particular interest is the following quote by O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: OK, but you know why he won't do it? Because according to the Bar -- and the head of the Bar is a man named Mike Nisporos, all right? The judge, Mudd, and the deputy D.A., Jeff Dusek, both told the Bar that these lawyers didn't do anything wrong.

[EllaMinnow]

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Impact segment tonight, it is sad but true that the powerful in America often protect each other. We've said that before. And there's no better example of this than in the California Bar's investigation of Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce, the attorneys who represented convicted child killer, David Westerfield.

Evidence produced on THE FACTOR last week shows that those lawyers knew Westerfield killed seven-year-old Danielle van Dam but attempted to mislead the jury, the attorneys did, a clear violation of the California legal code. But the Bar says Feldman and Boyce didn't do anything wrong.

Joining us now from New York, sitting right next to me -- I'm delirious here, I think, Judge Napolitano, Fox News chief legal analyst.

All right, now look, you saw the piece with Paul Pfingst, the D.A. in San Diego, and he said flat out, look, these guys offered the deal, we'll save his life, we'll lead you to the body. OK? So, they had to know she was dead because they couldn't offer the deal if they didn't have, you know, where the body was.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: It's a rare case that you know, but this was one of them.

O'REILLY: So, we've established that beyond a reasonable doubt.

NAPOLITANO: Yes.

O'REILLY: Then we've established beyond a reasonable doubt that they went in, destroyed the van Dam's reputation, pointed fingers at other people that may have killed, they said, little Danielle, and said the body may have been moved by the cops. They brought in idiot bug experts. All right? Fabrications all. All right?

So, then we file a complaint, as you know...

NAPOLITANO: Yes.

O'REILLY: And the California Bar comes back and says they didn't do anything wrong. What's your reaction to it?

NAPOLITANO: My reaction is, it's another example -- and you've harped on this many time the past couple of years -- of the powerful protecting the powerful. Those people on the California Bar who are doing the investigating don't want the tables turned and same thing done to them someday. The best argument that they can make is that Westerfield is on trial for his life, give the defense lawyer the most leeway possible, and you should give them the most leeway possible, but never to lie to the tribunal. He lied to two tribunals. He lied to the judge, and he lied to the jury.

O'REILLY: All right, now, the judge in the case, William Mudd, didn't know about the plea bargain because, by law, if it's not accepted, the judge can't know about it, correct?

NAPOLITANO: It depends on how intimate this judge is in the case. In New Jersey, you know about all of the plea bargains.

O'REILLY: Even if they're not accepted?

NAPOLITANO: Absolutely because you know about all their...

O'REILLY: I can't imagine that this Mudd knew this and then allowed the shenanigans that went on in the courtroom.

NAPOLITANO: If he knew it, he would have had an obligation to stop it.

O'REILLY: Stop it.

NAPOLITANO: So, let's assume that he doesn't know it. He has further obligations today. A judge is required -- required to report unethical conduct, and some cases file a complaint themselves.

O'REILLY: So, you're telling me this judge, Mudd, should today, all right, file a complaint against, now that he knows what happened?

NAPOLITANO: He is the victim. Is he one of the to two tribunals before whom the fraud was perpetrated.

O'REILLY: OK, but you know why he won't do it? Because according to the Bar -- and the head of the Bar is a man named Mike Nisporos, all right? The judge, Mudd, and the deputy D.A., Jeff Dusek, both told the Bar that these lawyers didn't do anything wrong. Is that possible?

NAPOLITANO: It's possible because it's the courthouse clubhouse atmosphere, which rationalized it.

O'REILLY: All right, so they rationalized

NAPOLITANO: They rationalized it away. Correct.

O'REILLY: And they didn't want to get in trouble? Or they didn't want to put themselves out...

NAPOLITANO: They didn't want to stick their necks out.

O'REILLY: Didn't want to stick their necks out. Now, what can be done? Bill Lockyer is the attorney general. He told us today, the attorney general of California, that he can't do anything right now because the case is on appeal. Is that B.S.?

NAPOLITANO: Well, there is little that he can do to effect the complaint. There's a lot he can do in terms of public relations. He can get in front of a camera, like right here with you, and say, what's wrong with the California system? Remember, if they were...

O'REILLY: Even if it's on appeal, he can do that?

NAPOLITANO: If they were exonerated the first time around, that means the fact findings went their way, it's going to be difficult for that to turn around and become an ethical conviction on the appeal.

O'REILLY: OK, but we have refiled it.

NAPOLITANO: You filed another complaint?

O'REILLY: Right. We filed another complaint.

NAPOLITANO: Because you now know for certain...

O'REILLY: Right, because Pfingst told us this is the D.A. -- told us, hey, this is what happened. We don't have any doubt about it. But Dusek thinks his subordinate, all right, told us -- he wouldn't answer our questions, Dusek, by the way. We said, how can your boss say this happened, and you say it's fine? Dusek hung up on us.

NAPOLITANO: The only thing I can say is what I said earlier. He doesn't want to stick his neck out, he doesn't want to get involved, he wants to go on with his life and his career. But he should purge the California system of those who would abuse it the way these two guys have.

O'REILLY: Well, bottom line is California's probably not going to do anything about this. And it is disgusting. Judge, thanks very much. We appreciate it.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

Click

[demsux]

O'REILLY: Then we've established beyond a reasonable doubt that they went in, destroyed the van Dam's reputation, pointed fingers at other people that may have killed, they said, little Danielle, and said the body may have been moved by the cops. They brought in idiot bug experts. All right? Fabrications all. All right?

Does O'Reilly get anything right?

The defense didn't trash the VD's reputation, the VD's did that themselves.

When did the defense say that the cops moved the body?

The "idiot bug experts" were paid for by the prosecution.

His real name should be "Oh Really?".

[Jaded]

The important idiot bug expert was, yes.

Then there was Rodriguez.

[cyncooper]

Judge Napolitano, Fox News chief legal analyst.

All right, now look, you saw the piece with Paul Pfingst, the D.A. in San Diego, and he said flat out, look, these guys offered the deal, we'll save his life, we'll lead you to the body. OK? So, they had to know she was dead because they couldn't offer the deal if they didn't have, you know, where the body was.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: It's a rare case that you know, but this was one of them.

O'REILLY: So, we've established that beyond a reasonable doubt.

NAPOLITANO: Yes.

Well, there Judge Napolitano and O'Reilly are discussing the very interview I stated earlier on this thread at #49 that I saw.

I reported that Pfingst stated this yet I noticed the naysayers focus on the thread article only and whether the reporter in the article artfully set up Pfingst's confirmation of the plea and ignored my reporting of hearing it directly from him. Well, I think we can trust it now that we see Judge Napolitano confirm what I heard.

[demsux]

Judge Napolitano, Fox News chief legal analyst.

He's a talking head for Fox News, he wasn't the presiding judge...

[EllaMinnow]

No one ever said he was...geez.

I'm still waiting for Feldy's denial.

[Mr Information]

Plea negotiations are confidential. If Pfingst was telling the truth about the negotiations in this case, then that means he was violating ethics guidelines - and is therefore unethical. But if he’s unethical, then how can we believe him?

He doesn’t say he spoke personally to Westerfield’s attorneys, let alone to Westerfield himself, so we can infer that his belief is based on hearsay - which is unreliable, so this is another reason for doubting him.

Brenda stated, on Larry King Live on June 11, 2003, that she and Damon needed to know where their daughter was, so they went to Pfingst and asked him to bargain with Westerfield, using the death penalty as his bargaining chip. What obviously happened therefore is that Pfingst did so. Probably someone else in his office, rather than himself, then took the offer to Westerfield’s attorneys, they passed it on to him, and he rejected it because he, being innocent, didn’t know where the body was.