[UCANSEE2]

The jury will see his unwillingness to testify on his own behalf as an admission of guilt

I have to disagree. What does he need to testify about? What can he testify to?

He already cooperated with the police and where did that get him? The arrested him because he was cooperative.

His statements have been gone over and over in court and compared to various witnesses testimony as to their truth and accuracy.

If he is not guilty, then he knows nothing about Danielle's disappearance, so what can he testify to ??????? If you can answer that, I might accept your statement. It is usually the stance of the Defense lawyers to not have their client testify. It is a matter of law that you can not be compelled to testify against yourself.

[spectre]

Yes..

Night all...tommorrow.

sw

[Freedom2specul8]

Hey, I forgot to give you this link earlier..it's kind of easier to navigate cuz it's on 3 pages instead of 1 big page without paragraph breaks. dusek's opening statement It's all lower case cuz I just changed the font...didn't like the way it read on uniontrib.

[BunnySlippers]

The arrested him because he was cooperative.

I would love to know this and perhaps you can help.

If you ABSOLUTELY KNEW that Danielle was NEVER in Westerfield's motorhome what would you vote? Guilty or not guilty?

BTW, we will never know if she was or was not.

[AppyPappy]

. What does he need to testify about? What can he testify to?

He testifies to his innocence. He never saw the girl that day. She was never in his motor home to his knowledge. He went on a trip and got stuck. He drove around and came home. He did not kill her. What's the prosecution going to use as a counter? His fingerprints on her body? His DNA on her? Nothing.

If he does not sway the jury, they will convict him. It's just that close.