[jacquej]

I was offering my understanding of MisSterious view of assuming the guilt of a defendant based evidence that appears to some to be highly flawed, with many other possible explanations.

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.

[Mrs.Liberty]

Per RR, Damon has been banned from the courtroom by Judge Mudd. He has been intimidating DW when DW is entering the courtroom. Also unconfirmed (per JAMS) is that Brenda has been seen making gestures to the jury and some are uncomfortable with that.

[NatureGirl]

Isn't it also one of those "anti-death penalty" platforms, that an innocent person may be put to death? If it turns out that DW is NOT guilty, it makes quite a case for those that would like to see the death penalty abolished. Quite a little nugget to use, considering the case is being followed so widely.

The death penalty in the case is the biggest reason that I'm skeptical of "circumstantial" evidence. Look at it this way - if we were told that DW never had his MH in the area, that it was always in storage, always locked and THEN Danielle's blood and hair were found in it, that's circumstantial evidence that would really matter to me, if I was on the jury.

[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.