DEFENSE FLOATS 'CULT' THEORY IN LACI MURDER

New York Post ^ | 5/17/03 | MARSHA KRANES

[billhilly]

"This attorney sounds wacko and it makes me just a little curious as to whom he really is. Anyone local know anything about him??"

Geragos slides out from under his rock whenever someone guilty is famous enough for him to represent. He represented Susan McDougal, of whitewater fame, and Geraldo and other Clinton suck-ups gave him all of the air time and ink that he wanted. Interestingly, I believe Ms. Gloria Allred was on the same side at that time.

[EllaMinnow]

How typical of you. You are willing to frame anybody and his brother of Danielle van Dam's murder except for the man who was convicted.

[UCANSEE2]

Another personal attack. Thanks for your input.

[UCANSEE2]

If you want to accuse me of 'framing' somebody, I would be delighted to see your proof. I linked to an article about a CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTOR, and showed the similarities to the disappearance of Danielle. Where did I 'frame' him?

[EllaMinnow]

Simply arguing on your level.

[UCANSEE2]

I agree I dropped to making personal attacks also. It is not 'my level'. It is not how I normally discuss issues on FR. Why do you drop to that level?
I would like to get back to debating the conviction, the evidence, etc.

[UCANSEE2]

P.S. Another stipulation. DUSEK may not have had time to have ALL evidence tested.

[UCANSEE2]

I am stopping. This conversation is on the wrong thread.
I apoligize for letting it continue this long.

[UCANSEE2]

So, what is your idea on the Laci Peterson case?
Do you think it is highly probable Scott killed her?
Or would you suspect someone else?

I think there are certain things that link him to her death, but don't provide definitive proof.

I think there may be more items of evidence the public knows nothing about yet.

I also think it is possible he had motive, maybe even wanted to be done with Laci, but didn't do it. Maybe he wanted a divorce, but wanted to wait until after the child was born to bring it up. Who knows.

[UCANSEE2]

A "rage"? Oh, brother...

I have proof of this, do you really want me to show it ?

[Publicus]

"The JUDGE is supposed to make sure the clients on both sides are provided due process, and make sure neither attorney abuses anyone"

Come on now, most "Judges" today don't even know the law. They sit back and let the attorneys drone on and on and on without even independently verifying anything. Many cases these days are "won"/"lost" not on the merits but rather on which attorney the "Judge" likes better or believes- i.e. the "better" salesman/bser.



"Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket?"

Yes. Plenty of times (mostly on open roads/highways with very little or no traffic or going WITH traffic flow of around 35-40 in "25 zone" during that time of the month- ie. ticket revenue quota with speed trap around curve.)




"Had a lawyer get it changed to mechanical failure?"

NEVER. I could have had them fixed but I declined. I believe in truth and paying for transgressions not exploiting the system with bs technicalities. Regardless the fact the policeman screwed up and regardless the fact the "Judge" didn't even realize I was being charged under the wrong statute, I paid up because the TRUTH was I was indeed going faster than the speed limit at the time. I admitted this and paid the fine while pointing out police screw-ups and the judge's failure to recognize wrong statute.




"Please show any proof, whatsoever, that Feldman and associate KNEW their client was guilty. You are assuming they knew, based on the outcome of the trial, and reports in the SDUT where it is specified the 'source' is 'unidentified'. Prove it."

According to public sources, Feldman and the other spineless rodent offered to bring the police to the site where their client buried the little girl's remains in exchange for leniency. DA declined their generous offer and went to trial.




"On the contrary, I think Feldman totally failed as a lawyer. I would never hire him, based on that performance."

Right. We agree.




"Very few will hire him after this case anyway. A lawyer that loses is not highly valued. Feldman is 'way' into the technical and forensics end of defending a case."

Forensics are merely one way to support or undermine evidence and/or increase confidence or doubt.




"He thought that (since all other options were limited due to time, due to Prosecution not giving him evidence for re-testing(another violation of DW's rights, but who cares, right?)due to it being 'destroyed', and he decided he should capitalize on the forensic entomologist's testimony."

I cannot speak for Feldman nor second guess his strategy. Likewise, I never suggested defendant's rights be compromised as a means for justice to be served.




"Especially since the person was used by Prosecution as a key witness in many prior cases. What Feldman didn't see coming is that The jury would be hand-picked by Prosecution, to ensure they would respond emotionally and not logically, and that Dusek would risk discrediting his favorite expert to win the case."

Where was Feldman during voire dire?




"LAST POINT. NOT A DAMN ONE OF YOU seems to care that DUSEK was willing to SAY AND DO anything to win the case. That seems to be OK."

No. That is NOT okay. THAT is the problem. Too many lawyers have forgotten their superceding role as officers of the court.




"He claimed DW raped Danielle, in the MH, banging her head against the headboard. Many people in the US believe that her hairs were found imbedded into the headboard. This was a DIRECT LIE with no support and was not even a charge(rape) being levied at DW."

I never supported allegations without evidence.




"HOW can you think DUSEK is allowed to LIE, and FELDMAN is not."

(Asked and answered- see above)




"Besides the fact, you have no proof FELDMAN in any way ever lied, at all."

(See above)




"There is proof DUSEK lied, over and over. How do you justify this ? "

I do not. In fact I am against lying to the Court because lies obstruct justice.

[UCANSEE2]

First, Thank you for responding to the questions I posed. It is rare that someone with a differing opinion bothers to answer any questions.

Come on now, most "Judges" today don't even know the law. They sit back and let the attorneys drone on and on and on without even independently verifying anything. Many cases these days are "won"/"lost" not on the merits but rather on which attorney the "Judge" likes better or believes- i.e. the "better" salesman/bser. <

Based on your statement, we can assume Westerfield did not get a fair trial. That talent prevailed over truth. Right?

NEVER. I could have had them fixed but I declined.

I admire your conviction.

I admitted this and paid the fine while pointing out police screw-ups and the judge's failure to recognize wrong statute.

So did the judge stick it to you for flaunting his mistake in his face?

According to public sources, Feldman and the other spineless rodent offered to bring the police to the site where their client buried the little girl's remains in exchange for leniency. DA declined their generous offer and went to trial.

Here again, I say THEY GOT YOU. Maybe you will catch on here.

According to public sources. Actually the news article said according to UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. You know this means nothing. Could I put you in jail(get you convicted of a crime) if I told the judge that someone I didn't bring to court, and whose name I can't reveal, said you did it?

Feldman and the other spineless rodent offered to bring the police to the site where their client buried the little girl's remains in exchange for leniency.

And where exactly was this burial site? Just the fact your version of the story includes Burial betrays the truth. She was not buried at all.

Brenda Van Dam has admitted that her and Damon asked Pfingst to offer a deal to Feldman and Boyce to ask Westerfield to reveal the location of Danielle in exchange for leniency. What is so far unproven, is whether Feldman offered the deal to DW. Whether he gave them the location, or even knew of the location. Notice that Feldman was on his way to see DW to tell him of the deal when the body was found. Supposedly it was also Identified (which was only a guess, positive ID takes time) as Danielle and this info was conveyed to Pfingst who then told Feldman to forget the deal. If true, this means Feldman never got to go see DW to tell him of the deal and get the supposed location. Some posters believe that the deal being discussed proves DW knew, and offered to tell. They also believe DW initiated the deal. They are wrong, for sure on the last part. But they must believe the last part to believe the first. I don't know why. Main reason is because that is the way the media FED the info to them. AND TO YOU.

Some posters claim Pfingst stated that DW knew and was offering to tell, and initiated the deal. That he did this on the O'reilly show. Well, Pfinsgt never says YES in response to O'reilly's supposition. If you can get a transcript, see for yourself.

I even had some tell me there was a map that DW marked the location on (before getting a promise of leniency). That is one reason I know they are being misled. Of course a reporter SAW the map. An unidentified reporter. An Unidentified map, that no longer (and never did) exist. At least one with a spot marked on it.

Remember, the key is that the posters that believe the media , believe DW initiated the deal. Brenda Van Dam states that she asked Pfingst to initiate the deal. Would you believe Brenda? or newspaper articles with UNIDENTIFIED SOURCES?

[UCANSEE2]

You are willing to frame anybody and his brother of Danielle van Dam's murder

I am willing to consider likely perpetrators, since I believe that DW did not kill Danielle, and was railroaded to preserve someone's track record.

For instance, I didn't frame you for the murder. You are going just a little bit overboard here. Is your anger in charge?

[EllaMinnow]

B. VAN DAM: ... and I had not found Danielle, I can't -- I could not have gone the rest of my life not knowing where she was. And I would -- Damon and I agreed to give that up in the beginning. We went to Pa Finks (ph), and we said, you know, We need to know where our daughter is. Could you at least try to bargain with him and use the death penalty as your bargaining chip?

GRACE: Which was so interesting because, as we saw the defense mount its case, including an attack on you, as the figurehead of the defense, inside, you knew all along that the defendant, David Westerfield, had agreed to tell you where Danielle's body was if you would agree to life behind bars, as opposed to the death penalty.

D. VAN DAM: And on top of it, he agreed that through his lawyer, Feldman...

GRACE: Right.

D. VAN DAM: ... which means that Feldman and Bois (ph) also had to know that he was actually guilty...

GRACE: So you sat...

D. VAN DAM: ... while they -- while they were advocates. As Feldman says, he's only an advocate, not an evil guy. Well...

GRACE: So throughout this whole thing...

D. VAN DAM: He knew it the whole time, and he continued to do anything...

B. VAN DAM: Well, what actually happened...

D. VAN DAM: ... to get his client off, regardless of how evil that was.

B. VAN DAM: The day that Danielle's body was found is the day that the defense attorney went in front of Pa Finks -- actually, both of them, Feldman and Bois -- and they were actually trying to plea bargain. I guess Paulson Howell (ph) got a call, and he called Jim Collins, Lieutenant Jim Collins...

GRACE: Right.

B. VAN DAM: ... and he said, I have two attorneys in front of me right now trying to cut a deal. And Jim Collins said, There's no deal. I just identified the body.

[UCANSEE2]

ON the rest of your responses to my responses, THANK YOU for providing civil and sincere responses. I apologize for any 'anger' that came out in my original responses.

I have such a hard time getting posters that believe DW really did it to see that myself and others are not Champions of DW. We are not promoting him as a person. We believe that there was injustice, there was coverup, there were and abundance of reasons for the need to arrest and KILL someone, anyone, to calm the public. That DW seemed to be their choice, based on the info they got. That once committed to him, there was no going back. That it is obvious if one reads the testimony. If one notices all the contradictions.

Have you seen the SUPER NINJA DAVE website? If you haven't, it would be the mark of an intelligent person to look at it and read some. Especially the "DONT TELL THE JURY" section. You can make your own judgment, and a better one, with more information. I believe you have been fed the side that Pfingst,Dusek, the SDPD, the media, and the Van Dams want you to know. It is interesting to see the testimonies with added comments from the writer where each statement is compared to previous or later testimony on the same subject. Seems the police experts, the VD witnesses, basically most of the Prosection witnesses either lied or were confused as they contradicted themselves over and over.

BUT, don't believe me, go see for yourself.

I have to go. Won't be back on here until Monday. Have a nice weekend, and again, THANK YOU for your responses, and trust yourself, no one else.

[Publicus]

"First, Thank you for responding to the questions I posed."

Thank you for your contributions. To me, this is what posting is all about- FREEPERS dissecting issues, weeding out facts from fiction and sharing concerns across issues of interest.



"It is rare that someone with a differing opinion bothers to answer any questions."

If you don't answer and pose questions, how is one supposed to learn anything?



"Based on your statement, we can assume Westerfield did not get a fair trial. That talent prevailed over truth. Right?

Didn't the investigators find Danielle's hair and blood in Westerfield's home/car?




"I admire your conviction."

Opinions can change, but one must always stay true to certain principles otherwise life is like a rudderless boat.




So did the judge stick it to you for flaunting his mistake in his face?

No. I wasn't vindictive about it just matter of fact. AFterall, its OUR courthouse enforcing OUR laws and its up to all of us to be constructive with OUR institutions.



"Here again, I say THEY GOT YOU. Maybe you will catch on here. According to public sources. Actually the news article said according to UNDISCLOSED SOURCES.

Yes. But why? What's the big deal?



"You know this means nothing. Could I put you in jail(get you convicted of a crime) if I told the judge that someone I didn't bring to court, and whose name I can't reveal, said you did it?"

Come on now, you're patronizing...(right to face accuser)


"And where exactly was this burial site? Just the fact your version of the story includes Burial betrays the truth. She was not buried at all."

You are right. The news reports said the body was found on the surface.



"Brenda Van Dam has admitted that her and Damon asked Pfingst to offer a deal to Feldman and Boyce to ask Westerfield to reveal the location of Danielle in exchange for leniency. What is so far unproven, is whether Feldman offered the deal to DW. Whether he gave them the location, or even knew of the location. Notice that Feldman was on his way to see DW to tell him of the deal when the body was found. Supposedly it was also Identified (which was only a guess, positive ID takes time) as Danielle and this info was conveyed to Pfingst who then told Feldman to forget the deal. If true, this means Feldman never got to go see DW to tell him of the deal and get the supposed location. Some posters believe that the deal being discussed proves DW knew, and offered to tell. They also believe DW initiated the deal. They are wrong, for sure on the last part. But they must believe the last part to believe the first. I don't know why. Main reason is because that is the way the media FED the info to them. AND TO YOU."

True. I have not seen actual police reports nor transcripts. The only sources are in fact hearsay (media).


"Some posters claim Pfingst stated that DW knew and was offering to tell, and initiated the deal. That he did this on the O'reilly show. Well, Pfinsgt never says YES in response to O'reilly's supposition. If you can get a transcript, see for yourself. I even had some tell me there was a map that DW marked the location on (before getting a promise of leniency). That is one reason I know they are being misled. Of course a reporter SAW the map. An unidentified reporter. An Unidentified map, that no longer (and never did) exist. At least one with a spot marked on it."

OK. But then who's making up the map?


"Remember, the key is that the posters that believe the media , believe DW initiated the deal."

I am not sure about that. FREEPERS tend to be skeptical of "mainstream" media reports- especially speculative ones.


"Brenda Van Dam states that she asked Pfingst to initiate the deal. Would you believe Brenda? or newspaper articles with UNIDENTIFIED SOURCES?"

Sounds like Brenda concluded Westerfield did it (what made her conclude that he did it?)