[jacquej]

Cyn, you said:

"Dusek's opening statement about a fiber found in the sheet her body was wrapped in matching a fiber from DW's home. It may have been a fiber in the laundry/laundry room."

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...

Anyone else know more about whether the opening statements are considered to be evidence? This might clear up some of the differences of opinion, in that some of you are considering these statements actual evidence, when they are just rhetoric...;

[Rheo]

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

[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.

[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.

[cyncooper]

Anyone else know more about whether the opening statements are considered to be evidence? This might clear up some of the differences of opinion, in that some of you are considering these statements actual evidence, when they are just rhetoric...;

I just want to underscore this point.

We all know opening statements are not evidence. And neither are questions asked by attorneys. It seems that if one speculates based on anticipating evidence based on opening statements, that is just as valid as someone speculating due to questions asked by an attorney, i.e. Feldman and the sunglasses.

We don't know about the sunglasses except for his questions and people here are free to take it from there.

I don't know about any potentional evidence tying DW to the Dehesa site except for opening statement and made my comment----fair enough it seems to me.