We had a guy on the radio this morning that said if a defendant told his defense atty he's innocent or not guilty of these charges...the attorney will act accordingly.. For example, If he told feldman that he did it, following the rules, Feldman will NOT stand in front of the jury and say DW did NOT do it. I can't remember whether Feldman said to the jury that his client is innocent during opening statements?
We have a guy on trial for contacting women via the internet..he was into bondage. He'd use them, kill them and then stuff their bodies, including a child and her mom into 55 gallon drums and 'stored them' in his pond and an area storage business. (Ucansee, was it a pond or lake? I think it was the pond where his trailor was?) He's pretty much toast. There are numerous cases where one thinks "I hope he's not guilty" or "he can't be guilty" or "he has to be guilty". This case is of course not like the serial killer who was into bondage..the evidence is smaller in size and because of publicity and internet sleuths..we have questions and it's not easy to say "he's gotta be guilty or he's gotta be innocent". (thank God they found Danielle's body because it did reveal tons of information)
To be honest about the people on these threads..not society in general (thinking about what mizs just wrote).....the constant posting about sex swaps, the encyclopedia posts about swinging etc., and all the speculations about what could have happened between dvd and danielle leaves others with the same sense of disbelief as some of you have. You obviously know that..but I would like more honesty amongst those few, (3-4) who consider themselves to be the "Know =it= alls, and everyone else knows nothing and must be liberals (clintonese tactics as I've said a 100 times--it's a big injustice in and of itself)". Talk about being completely closed minded. I understand the lack of complete faith in the justice system (Randy Weaver and waco come to mind as partial causes of the complete lack of faith and trust) I do NOT understand the inability to allow for different opinions and interpretations during discussion.
So, we have on these threads questions, the majority of posters have tolerance for different interpretations and we have different conclusions, interpretations and tactics. That's normal, so i don't see a problem. We're not all braindead..the threads are evidence of CREATING and thinking..minus the garbage in and garbage out crappola.
Kim, it's really frustrating that you keep posting stuff that has not been borne out by the evidence presented. For example, there was no blood found in DW's SUV or house. One tiny drop of Danielle's DNA-laden material of unknown provenance (could have been blood, they don't know for sure) was found on DW's jacket. One tiny (1/4") drop of blood was found in DW's MH.