Except the problem with your hope that Feldman is referring to the Van Dams is the above statement from Feldman was regarding evidence he was trying to suppress. If it was evidence implicating someone other than his client he would *want* it in.
Is it alright to portray Westerfield as a perverted, twisted, horney child molester, and use his taste for porno as a motive? Make a public display of his pictures and tapes and NOT introduce what the van Dams want to hide?
OTOH, we do have a double standard when it comes to the sainted van Dams, who seemed comfortable enough saying "they regret nothing", when in fact, they had a ravenous drug and swinging appetite, that most likely makes DW seem like a normal, single person.
Feldman WILL get his evidence in...then let the chips fall where they may.
I don't happen to think he is blowing smoke and he would not imply his own Client is guilty. JMHO.
sw