Replies

My evidence suggests that there was a list of persons whom Mr Feldman would have liked to call, but the judge said he would only allow them if

(1) They were definite alibi witnesses who could place DW elsewhere when crime committed; or

(2) some other category such as persons who would flatly contradict, falsify, and impugn what had already been said by Van Dams or other persons who DID testify...

Apparently the witnesses in question were not very clearly in those categories, and the judge quickly wrapped it up, before perhaps it could be determined whether the witnesses proposed would or would not, fit one of those two.

A lot of this case is going to come down to Reasonable Doubt that DW did it. Law requires that if there is "RD," Mr Westerfield cannot be convicted and must be acquitted.

Unless the prosecution can present VASTLY more incriminating info against DW than we have been told they have...and Unless the doubts arising inherently from the various stories of the VDs and the wide-open opportunities for anyone at all incl their other guests, to have committed whatever was committed...

AND UNLESS THE VERY SERIOUS REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE CRIMES WITH WHICH DW IS CHARGED WERE EVEN COMMITTED AT ALL can be resolved, ...

Then this case is over before it begins, and ought to be dismissed.

Again I say, there is as far as any of us sharpies knows, far more than enough reasonable doubt that the crimes WERE EVEN COMMITTED AT ALL, to require the judge to simply dismiss the charges against some specific fall guy who has been picked up.