VAN DAM vs. Westerfield, 6-24-02: Televised proceedings a far cry from O.J. fiasco!

Union Tribune ^ | June 24, 2002 | Alex Roth

[Rheo]

That is my understanding also...judge admonishes the jury to not take attorneys opening statements or statements to be evidence.

[theirjustdue]

"I am assuming she is bothered by what appears to be a rush to judgement, and I can understnad that, as it certainly has happened before in the history of this country, and it is always a danger when it does, not only to the individual accused, but to a group or groups who are seen as suspect.",

IMO, you've done a great job jacq in trying to express what Miz was saying in her #429. I had hoped Miz would be back to answer, but in her absence, I would like to express my views on the meaning of her comment:

If your life is on the line, it doesn't matter if you are one, or one of three thousand, a terrorist is a lawbreaker, that strikes terror into his/her victim. It can just as easily be LE.

I happen to believe that LE is convinced DW is guilty (and he may be) and feel that, for them, the end, in this case, justifies the means.

There have IMO, been some less than honest actions taken on the side of the prosecution, and that includes omision, which IMO, is just as bad as an outright lie or fabrication.

If by some chance DW were innocent, I cannot think of a worse form of terror, than to be accused of what DW is being tried for. If I knew I was innocent, I would rather have died in the WT Towers, than go through what he is now going through. Hence, IMO, what Miz stated in her #429 fits the application to a tee.

If DW is guilty and there is ample evidence to prove it, let him be found guilty and pay for his crime. But, this must be done within the framework of our constitution. Let LE prove it without ommiting key evidence, clues and possible key testimony, just to nail the person they "BELIEVE" is the guilty party.

In a capital murder case, "the end can never justify the means". JMHO.

[UCANSEE2]

Bless you, UCANSEE2, because I think you mean well, but are we not in the midst of a TRIAL??? What are you talking about "without the benefit of trial or evidence, etc.???

Yes, we are in the middle of a trial. There are those who did not want a trial. They want DW hung. There is a DA that wanted to jump on this case to make his re-election bid. He doesn't care whether DW is guilty or innocent. He allowed the case to go forward, when it would appear it shouldn't have. He would like to have DW convicted, for his own re-election efforts. He doesn't care that the evidence is really 'limp' and if DW is set free, he won't care about who really did the crime. By then it won't benefit him, so why bother.

Those are examples that support what I was saying.

[fnord]

mo

[UCANSEE2]

At any rate, the evidence collector said the floor had not been vacuumed or cleaned the morning of Feb. 1 from what she could see.

And I think they were talking about Danielle's room.

The steam cleaner I thought was found in the hall. An earlier post said it was in the MB. Someone questioned had the steam cleaner been used in the MB and had the police checked to see if it had. I think this is something that could be important. I also think that it was not done.

[connectthedots]

Because a lot of judges are corrupt, too!! I know from personal experience.

[Rheo]

Steam cleaner was in the MB by the armoire and towels....believe the vacuum was in the hall initially as BVD had brought it upstairs to vacuum that weekend.

[Freedom2specul8]

I may need to be corrected here, but I was under the impression that opening statements were NOT evidence. At least that is what I thought I heard the judge tell the jury...

Not evidence..it's kind of a preview of what they'll see. If feldman LIED to the jury...that would be bad.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you. Now it is clearer.

[fnord]

if Dusek lied to the jury, wouold that be badder ?

[Freedom2specul8]

If law enforcement wasn't convinced dw was guilty, they wouldn't have presented the caes to the prosector.

[fnord]

since there will be a weekend break, maybe some enterprising soul will do a point-by-point comparison between Dusk's opening statement, and the evidence presented. That would be educational.

[Freedom2specul8]

caes = case

[Freedom2specul8]

I've been working on separating his points...will giv eyou the link..maybe we can do that together.

[theirjustdue]

"Not evidence..it's kind of a preview of what they'll see. If feldman LIED to the jury...that would be bad."

Why do you single out Feldman here, Kim? Don't you think it would be just as bad, if Dusek lied to the jury?

[fnord]

I've never seen the transcript ... and I fell asleep during the presentation, lol. j/k

[fnord]

can't type so I'm outta here. catch up with all the posts and testimony tomorrow night ...

[theirjustdue]

"If law enforcement wasn't convinced dw was guilty, they wouldn't have presented the caes to the prosector.

Kim, did you even bother to read what I said?

I said, I feel they are sincere in believing DW's guilty, but I feel they think the end justifies the means in this case.

[Freedom2specul8]

I meant dusek, not feldman..sorry. Could have been a freudian slip. :)

[cyncooper]

Um, that is why I said POSSIBLY in the post in question. It is certainly reasonable for one to anticipate the prosecutor will provide evidence to back up his assertion. Those with another point of view, that DW is innocent, certainly go far afield coming up with scenarios to explain things and that is their perogative. See the difference? I am not sitting on the jury. I get to speculate like everybody else here.