Skip to comments.
Danielle van Dam - Case Timeline prior to trial of David Westerfield. Feb 2 - May 30, 2002
Crime and Punishment ^
| May 30, 2002
| Bill Bickel
Posted on 05/30/2002 12:18:18 PM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-195 next last
To: theirjustdue
141
posted on
05/31/2002 11:07:06 AM PDT
by
vacrn
To: theirjustdue
I wasn't pointing to you only..It's not exactly that people said he was lying, but it was the idea that he said that only to judge reactions.... I could have easily misread the posts...or misjudged the undercurrent flowing in the thread. Sorry bout that.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
If they found something on the vD computers, the prosecution would not want to bring that into evidence. It wouldn't look good for their case. They've outlined what they found on Westerfield's computer. So where is this other stuff from? If the prosecution found this on the vD computers, they wouldn't be forced to bring it out at trial, but they would (I believe) be forced to turn it over to the Westerfield defense team. And if that's the case, Feldman will almost certainly use it.
To: vacrn
I thought it was odd to use alcohol as a defense..nice article find.. I'll read it all when I get back online. Manslaughter and alcohol seems to go hand in hand cuz it may be something someone would NOT do if they were sober..
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Because, and don't take this the wrong way, they are the victims. Could you imagine the uproar? This case is highly emotional.
145
posted on
05/31/2002 11:15:11 AM PDT
by
Jaded
To: MizSterious
If they found something on the vD computers, the prosecution would not want to bring that into evidence. Wait a minute.. what is it called when the police IGNORE a crime like that? That's my point. Child Porn, operation candy man or whatever it's called..it's hot right now..getting people caught and convicted. They are ABSOLUTE idiots if they did not charge them as soon as they found out. Tis hard to even comprehend...
I have some errands..will check in when I get back.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
"I wasn't pointing to you only..It's not exactly that people said he was lying, but it was the idea that he said that only to judge reactions.... I could have easily misread the posts...or misjudged the undercurrent flowing in the thread. Sorry bout that."
My guess is you didn't read it. But here it is again. I don't know how I could have made it any clearer.
But, if some possibly do exist, Feldman may have been visually gauging the reaction of each potential juror for any outward hint of disgust, or any other subtle reaction that might, in his mind, make them a juror he would not like to see impaneled.
To: Jaded; All
When I went to look at the photos from Danielle's Memorial Service, I saw a photo that I hadn't seen before. I'm referring to the one where they are displaying one of the "Heirloom" poses of Danielle, with the umbrella.
Do you know if there are other shots of it on the internet anywhere? I'd like to see it clearer than the 'photo in a photo'.
148
posted on
05/31/2002 11:18:37 AM PDT
by
Karson
To: Jaded
Which post was #145 referring to?
To: theirjustdue
You said "But, if some possibly do exist, ". He said "they would be forced to view "
The report was just saying to me, they have some...and they'll be forced to look at them...meaning there's no question..otherwise he was lying during voir dire...which would be a major mistake.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Wait a minute.. what is it called when the police IGNORE a crime like that? That's my point. Child Porn, operation candy man or whatever it's called..it's hot right now..getting people caught and convicted. They are ABSOLUTE idiots if they did not charge them as soon as they found out. Tis hard to even comprehend...
If it's something off the VD's computer, it may not be definitive enough to bring actual charges (yet, anyway). Could be nothing more than her getting out of the tub. Still would meet the definition of "a nude, prepubescent female" wouldn't it?
Now, before you guffaw at that kind of possibility, I'll save you the trouble. Remember the photos found on DW's computer of his girlfriend's daughter lounging in her swimsuit? Not all that much, in and of themselves, in my mind. But, they were used to show an emerging picture of what they claim DW to be.
Could the same be said of DVD if such questiionable photos of Danielle were found on his computer? In other words, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
They aren't going to charge the VDs with ANYTHING until the case is over.
If there aren't child endangerment charges after all this, I am going to be disgusted.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
You said "But, if some possibly do exist, ". He said "they would be forced to view " The report was just saying to me, they have some...and they'll be forced to look at them...meaning there's no question..otherwise he was lying during voir dire...which would be a major mistake
Kim, I'm only going to try one more time.
The key here, is that IF THAT WAS THE REASON he said it, AND IF PROSECUTION HAS SUCH PHOTOS (it was all supposition, okay?), then Feldman would naturally be expecting them to be shown during the trial.
So, Feldman wouldn't have been lying and would have had every right as DW's defense attorney to say it and to attempt to gauge their reactions. What they see in a their eyes, their reactions and a defense attorney's gut instincts are in large part what they base their decisions on as to whether or not to seat them.
To: Politicalmom
But don't be surprised if it doesn't. It's not the main focus here.
People were screaming for Rusty Yates to be charged as well. That never happened.
154
posted on
05/31/2002 12:03:24 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: theirjustdue;all
The first paragraph in my #150 was from KIM. It just didn't get italicized.
To: Politicalmom
If there aren't child endangerment charges after all this, I am going to be disgusted.Make that two of us!T he DA's office already has just cause -- the VDs testimony under oath -- for bringing charges against them.
156
posted on
05/31/2002 12:51:16 PM PDT
by
Karson
To: Jaded
Yates didn't admit to breaking several laws under oath. Maybe that will make a difference.
To: All
I have to say this. Something has been bothering me about all of Danielle's pictures, and I finally figured it out. Why does she look so raggedy? Her hair almost always looks like a haystack, and she just looks NEGLECTED. Am I alone in feeling this way? For someone so concerned with her OWN appearance, couldn't BVD at least have gotten the poor child a nice hair cut? Maybe some barrettes? A hair brush?
To: Politicalmom
No, I noticed the hair thing as well... I didn't judge her cuz I had horrid hair problems between 10-13 yrs. It was too fine, and looked stringy so easy..but blonde hair does that. Of course, my hair is much darker now..but I do remember tangles..
To: theirjustdue
So, Feldman wouldn't have been lying and would have had every right as DW's defense attorney to say it and to attempt to gauge their reactions. What they see in a their eyes, their reactions and a defense attorney's gut instincts are in large part what they base their decisions on as to whether or not to seat them Agreed..
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-195 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson