Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense: (Dusek Melting Down Before Juries Eyes!!)
NBC/San Diego ^ | July 22, 2002 | NBC/San Diego

Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,621-1,635 next last
To: Politicalmom
EVERYONE else? Watch that exaggerating.... : )

Well, it was hopeful thinking, anyway.

181 posted on 07/22/2002 4:54:46 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Attorneys do have to answer for direct lies to the jury.

An attorney could be disciplined by the bar for lying, but such lie may not be used to find his client guilty.

182 posted on 07/22/2002 4:55:19 PM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
No blood. Just trace of DNA of unknown origin.

Neither I, nor anyone else I see posting here, is a "Westerfield fan." I am a "reasonable doubt" fan. If the r.d. were one-fourth what there is in this case, an acquittal would be required.

My own view is that there is a 20% chance that DW did something seriously wrong or illegal, but that several other persons are also in that range or higher, including Damon-- and a possible abducting stranger who took Danielle from the little park near her home, or en route to or from it, on Friday afternoon.

DW certainly did NOT dispose of the body, so perhaps it would be best to start at Feb 16 with the body disposal, and work BACK!

All the best, crys.

183 posted on 07/22/2002 4:55:28 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
"Who else do you mean? or should I even ask?"

It seems you've already run into at least one, that I had in mind.

There just seems to me, to be an added sense of apprehension and aggravation in some poster's responses that seem to be resulting in things being said, that may be a little more heated, than the demeanor these individuals have previously exhibited. Just a personal observation and strictly JMO

184 posted on 07/22/2002 4:55:42 PM PDT by theirjustdue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
What is happening in the trial??

See GLOSSARY: WILD BUG CHASE

185 posted on 07/22/2002 4:56:42 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
Thank you...
186 posted on 07/22/2002 4:57:29 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA; UCANSEE2
DISTURBEDJACKAL= has to disrupt the ongoing discussion with pointless, idiotic and smartass remarks. His panties (BOXERS) are probably in a wad 24/7 and his momma didn't teach him better.

ASSJACKALS=close relative of the Jackass...a person who spends too much time complaining about other people.

187 posted on 07/22/2002 4:58:28 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: CAPPSMADNESS
In what way are Accounting and Forensics similar?

Applying assumptions to data. The basics are the same. In auditing, we state an opinion based on gathering evidence and applying accouting rules to the data. If we arrive at the same conclusions that the client does we can issue an favorable opinion. In valuations, tax returns etc. we do similar stuff.

188 posted on 07/22/2002 4:58:41 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Well, God Bless America! Attorneys are allowed to lie to the jury without adverse repercussion on their clients (whom they ARE supposedly acting on behalf of and under their direction).

Yes, that's right, the jury is only allowed to consider the EVIDENCE, and what the attorneys do in putting on the case is not EVIDENCE. Clients don't control how the attorney presents his case, and it would not be proper for a client to attempt to do so.

189 posted on 07/22/2002 4:59:04 PM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: CAPPSMADNESS
Just my little comment, put out there for anyone who wanted to read it.
190 posted on 07/22/2002 4:59:37 PM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I don't buy the snuck in to play one for several reasons

Why not? I'm willing to listen to what you have to say on this.
191 posted on 07/22/2002 5:00:19 PM PDT by NatureGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
My own view is that there is a 20% chance that DW did something seriously wrong or illegal, but that several other persons are also in that range or higher, including Damon-- and a possible abducting stranger who took Danielle from the little park near her home, or en route to or from it, on Friday afternoon.

If so, how do you explain the physical evidence in the RV and on Danielle ?

DW certainly did NOT dispose of the body, so perhaps it would be best to start at Feb 16 with the body disposal, and work BACK!

Why so certain the expert is correct ?

192 posted on 07/22/2002 5:01:18 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
Yes, that's right, the jury is only allowed to consider the EVIDENCE, and what the attorneys do in putting on the case is not EVIDENCE.

Including lying about the nature of that evidence. No wonder the justice system is so completely hosed.

Clients don't control how the attorney presents his case, and it would not be proper for a client to attempt to do so.

Wow. I ought to be a jury. Get paid good money and do what I bloody well want without that pesky client trying to tell what to do.

193 posted on 07/22/2002 5:01:26 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
If someone claimed they can prove a negative they should have no problem proving God doesn't/does exist. Hint: Its not possible.

  "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof defies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

  "Aha," says man, "But the Babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves that you exist, and therefore you don't. Q.E.D."

Drew Garrett

194 posted on 07/22/2002 5:01:41 PM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
Here is a link to everything (just about) available on the case.

Specifically where the admission is by police that they 'misconstrued' Brenda's statement in order to get a search warrant, I will have to search for.

It may be in the PH links. I have posted these also.

DW trial - links

People vs. Westerfield - Preliminary Trial Hearing

195 posted on 07/22/2002 5:01:57 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: All
Maybe at this point I should mention the "mysteriously-appearing" .22 shell?

It could be the "boxer shorts" of the evening!
196 posted on 07/22/2002 5:01:58 PM PDT by NatureGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
It was my understanding that an atty could not knowingly allow any witness to lie ?

That is correct. An attorney may not put on the stand a witness whom the attorney knows will not tell the truth.

197 posted on 07/22/2002 5:02:42 PM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
No caps needed Fres. These morons are known by their posts. It's a shame that these threads are constantly ruined by a small and mentally-challenged cadre of VD supporters.

"Sex in the City" is bad enough. Hollywood glamorizes amoral behavior, drug use, prostitution, adultery. Pepsi-Cola is promoted by a no-talent slut, every ad on radio is for some new herbal treatment to help restore your libido, the same high school counselors that once helped you select a college now see their priorities as recommending the local abortionist and handing out condoms.

No, as if all this crap isn't bad enough, we have to read posts defending the "alternative" (read amoral, indecent, and illegal behavior) lifestyle of these two pathetic excuses for parents.

I hope these "defenders" of their abberant "lifestyle" are prepared to eat crow, because there will be plenty to go around after the jury returns with a not guilty verdict based on reasonable doubt.

I know in my heart that you would never want to see anyone set free who was guilty of such a crime, but in this case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and they have not done a thorough and convincing job.

Doc

198 posted on 07/22/2002 5:02:55 PM PDT by Doc Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
And God disappears in a puff of logic, right?
199 posted on 07/22/2002 5:03:37 PM PDT by NatureGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
Maybe someone else remembers off the top of their head exactly where this is at. And they will be kind enough to direct you to it. I would have to search for a while. If I find it, I will post you. Thanks..
200 posted on 07/22/2002 5:03:38 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,621-1,635 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson