Skip to comments.
Anatomy Of A Murder: Westerfield vs. Van Dams (A Mother's Story)
San Diego Online ^
| June 27, 2002
| Kevin Cox
Posted on 06/27/2002 6:47:45 AM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 701-719 next last
To: spectre
Yeah, and they got their speedy trial too..sometimes ya just gotta BEND..but not over.
To: spectre
Ok, now I understand what happened better
"Ol' Feldy stands there and hems and haws about a witness he wants to call who is going to testify about computer screen captures, but who has failed...for some obscure reason Feldy is having trouble excusing, something like they didn't know they'd have to use him because they thought the prosecution witnesses would give them the answers they want (un huh)...to TURN IN ANY REPORTS AS TO WHAT HE'S TESTIFYING TO...which means the prosecution has NO OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A CROSS EXAMINATION on the issues raised...AND WHICH MEAN FELDY IS STALLING ON THE DISCOVERY ISSUE BIG TIME. Then Feldy IMMEDIATELY turns around and tells the judge HE'S worried the prosecution will SANDBAG OR AMBUSH the defense with their rebuttal witnesses.... LOLOL The judge looked like he wanted to LOLOL. I mean, talk about BALLS....
So the judge said the defense calling the kettle black statement, and I was so glad, 'cause I was sitting here thinking the same thing. Then the judge said he'd decide on rebuttal witnesses when that time came, if necessary. Go, MUDD!
But this is where the defense did another LOUSY, MISLEADING THING: Feldy tried to insert that the defense ENTOMOLOGIST will testify that Danielle cannot have been at Dehesa BEFORE the 6th, I think it was. THE PROSECUTION STOOD UP AND SAID THAT IS A LIE, THAT IS NOT WHAT THEIR ENTOMOLOGIST IS GOING TO SAY, because they have all seen his reports. The prosecution said Feldy is trying to influence any jurors watching this...and the judge said they better not be watching this.... http://www.websleuths.com/dcf/DCForumID4/764.html "
Have a nice day everyone... see ya when I get back later..
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
They got their "speedy" trial, because DW was rotting in jail. It's the Prosecution that is claiming that they didn't have time to do forensics on all the fibers that didn't look like they could link to Westerfield...
How's that for fair? They weren't going to do it even if they had all the time in the world.
sw
104
posted on
06/27/2002 11:33:46 AM PDT
by
spectre
To: juzcuz
about sparklies-- most likely the loose type that gets all over everything. if you go into any girls clothing department in any store (even real low-end stores) i would say nearly 90 percent of the clothes are covered with this glittery sparkly stuff. it is cute, but a real mess
105
posted on
06/27/2002 11:36:27 AM PDT
by
Tiger28
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
That really was an immature, biased and bitter analyses you posted. Websleuths is your typical Liberal forum.
Hit and Run...Bye for today Kim. I have to take a shower.
sw
106
posted on
06/27/2002 11:38:16 AM PDT
by
spectre
To: spectre
It was the last sentence that helped.. "The prosecution said Feldy is trying to influence any jurors watching this...and the judge said they better not be watching this.." proof it wasn't a slip of the tongue.. now i know what you meant by wanting sequested.
To: spectre
sequestered.
To: Jaded
Somehow I don't think that DvD made them bathe that night. That is why the fiber is still there. I've thought this the whole time. I've read Damon's testimony and he says he didn't even go upstairs until they were ready for bed a few minutes later.
Also, if Danielle took a bath that night, why were her clothes laying on her bedroom floor? Sounds to me like she took off her clothes, threw them in the floor and put on her pjs without taking a bath.
109
posted on
06/27/2002 11:44:54 AM PDT
by
Karson
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
The prosecution said it, kimbo...the prosecution said Feldman was trying to influence the jury watching this on TV...what part of this do you not understand??? It was the prosecution that said it...the Prosecution...Judge Mudd said "They better not be!
Are you for real, Kim?
sw
110
posted on
06/27/2002 11:53:14 AM PDT
by
spectre
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
That's a bunch of hooey... they should have been sequestered from the beginning..NOT in the middle of the game. True. Motion to sequester was made and denied about the same time as wanting a separate trial on the porn charges.
That actual request is so conveniant for the defense to scream for now.
It seems to me that it would be rather inconvenient to the defense. The jury heard the DA's case plus getting exposed to the anti-Westerfield speculation & rumours in the press.
To: Karson
Somehow I think Damon made HER bathe and that is why sparkles were not there.
Danielle could have brought PJ's in with her. After her bath, and brought worn clothes out with her and threw them on her bedroom floor.
112
posted on
06/27/2002 12:07:07 PM PDT
by
juzcuz
To: spectre
Hey, I just said I understand now spec..am I for real? I don't know..pinch me? LOL Now I'll be able to check in and out today..am not leaving hte house after all..so....
To: dread78645
Maybe they should have went ahead and let the jury be sequestered right now... would have been interesting to see the jury's reaction. Do you (or anyone else) know how the members responded wrt:questions about sequestering during voir dire?
To: juzcuz
Maybe she did get a bath and not the boys, but why? From the looks of her passport pic (taken on Friday 2/1) I would say she needed a bath and shampoo, but Damon didn't say anything about it.
OTOH, he didn't take a shower that night or the next morning either (judging from his testimony) but Brenda took a shower that night before going out (according to him but not according to her) and Brenda says she took a shower after she got up on Saturday morning. Brenda bathes twice but no testimony regarding Damon nor kids having a bath/shower.
115
posted on
06/27/2002 12:20:01 PM PDT
by
Karson
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Do you (or anyone else) know how the members responded wrt:questions about sequestering during voir dire? I couldn't answer for this jury; but in one of my times as prospective juror, it seemed the single people had no real problem with it, but the folks with spouse and family didn't like the idea at all.
To: All
BTW, I saw an old clip of the VDs on CTV earlier and Brenda was wearing what appeared to be an orange sweater. Depending on the light, it was definately orange or red. FWIW
117
posted on
06/27/2002 12:28:25 PM PDT
by
Karson
To: Valpal1
"Drowning was eliminated by ME, no water in lungs, which were still mostly intact."
I wondered how he eliminated this possibility of no water in the lungs considering he had said the body was mummified and there was no blood left. If there was no blood left, wouldn't any water have evaporated along with the decomposition as well? If the water evaporated or whatever the term is, just like the blood was gone, of course there's no water to in the lungs. There weren't any liquids in the girl.
118
posted on
06/27/2002 12:29:53 PM PDT
by
sbnsd
To: FresnoDA
Thanks for the heads up!
To: Rheo
Thanks for the heads up!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 701-719 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson