Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spectre
I'm sorry. Was this a generic response? I was merely pointing out that the specific statement by Feldman was about evidence he wanted deemed inadmissable. I don't see how that pertains to the Judge's ruling re: admissability of evidence of VD lifestyle.
192 posted on 05/31/2002 6:41:29 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]


To: cyncooper;ALL
Feldman's statement was cryptic. It's anyone's guess what he meant. Do you know what he was saying, for sure?

Feldman wanted to suppress evidence of DW's alledged porno pictures, saying it has no bearing on the disappearance of the child and would inflame the jury.

The prosecution will attempt to introduce videos or photographs of Danielle in life. This is highly prejudicial evidence, and irrelevant..because their admission would violate Westerfields Constitutional rights to a fair trial free of inflammatory information.

Again, it will inflame the jury to see Danielle's happy face, followed by Westerfields alledged pornographic pictures.

They have to show it, because it's their ONLY motive for DW alledgedly going after Danielle.

The van Dams are the victims, so they will get a pass on their alledged transgressions, with the exception of THAT night.

It should work both ways. But life isn't fair, now is it.

sw

193 posted on 05/31/2002 7:25:32 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson