And consider: in yesterday's testimony, Feldman started getting into the subject of the van Dams' own collection of porn involving very young girls. The question got and objection and a sustained, but once the prosecution puts their own porn expert on the stand, I wonder if the same question will be allowed. If they have kiddie porn, too, can we reach the same jump in logic that obviously that makes them pedophiles too? Seemed to be ok in Westerfield's case.
"And consider: in yesterday's testimony, Feldman started getting into the subject of the van Dams' own collection of porn involving very young girls. The question got and objection and a sustained, but once the prosecution puts their own porn expert on the stand, I wonder if the same question will be allowed. If they have kiddie porn, too, can we reach the same jump in logic that obviously that makes them pedophiles too? Seemed to be ok in Westerfield's case.
I think there is much yet to come out in this trial and you could well be right, that Feldman had not laid a foundation yet, to bring in that particular testimony. Whatever might exist, it may first take calling LE to testify that it was found, etc.
It is apparent that, as many of us had speculated, Judge Mudd has already let Feldman probe well beyond what some felt would be very tight parameters. As more is revealed he may decide that the scope should be widened even further, in the interest of justice.
IMO, it is very relevant, until whatever the VD's seem yet to be hiding is revealed.