Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Note the term "reasonable doubt."
That little detail keeps getting missed by the Westerfield Fan Club.
There's enough evidence, IMNHO, to convict Westerfield. People HAVE gone to the death chamber or life in prison on less evidence than this. We have a stiff. We have Danielle's blood on Westerfield's clothes. We have fiber evidence. We also have Westerfield's attorney working overtime to suppress evidence, and then getting caught "accidentally" (wink wink!) misleading the jury about that evidence.
Sorry, but if I were on the jury, I'd ignore everything in the defense case after THAT little pecadillo. If the prosecution had been caught doing likewise, I'd be a guaranteed vote to acquit.
You get one chance to tell me the truth in a trial. Miss that chance, you're hosed.
But who knows what will happen? Seems the defense has had plenty of time to conjure up stuff...let's see what tomorrow brings...
Thank you. I was making an unfair judgment about River, in assuming she wasn't watching. Then, Her and I disagree on interpretation of the testimony today.
Feldman attempted to lie to the jury, and he got caught. I think a reasonable juror would be well within their rights to ignore the entire defense case after that.
Maybe Westerfield did Not dump Danielle's raped and tortured body...?
Could it be that Westerfield's Spawn/Son did IT for him?!
Could it be that both father and son Teamed up to rape, and murder little Danielle?
I wonder if the Police and DA have Investigated the son?
If Not, Why Not?!
What kind of Alibi does Westerfield's son have?
later, sw
Based on your statement above, then, the SDPD, and most of the prosecution witnesses ARE HOSED. The Van Dams have repeatedly changed stories, the DOG GUY was a total failure, both Prosecution and Defense witnesses repeatedly stated that LE's did not copy down their statements correctly, and the LE's admitted the LIED to get a search warrant.
How do you defend that ?
I know, you are going to say it doesn't matter if they lied,only if defense lies. Go ahead, say it.
Note also the term "to a moral certainty." THAT, according to Professor LaFave, is the real meaning of "reasonable doubt."
You can derisively refer to those of us possessed of reasonable doubt as the "Westerfield Fan Club" if you like. Namecalling is the last resort of little minds, and we all realize that. We aren't "fans" of Westerfield, however; we're fans of seeing that justice be done. Justice cannot be done by executing the wrong person.
We also have Westerfield's attorney working overtime to suppress evidence, and then getting caught "accidentally" (wink wink!) misleading the jury about that evidence. Sorry, but if I were on the jury, I'd ignore everything in the defense case after THAT little pecadillo.
Then you shouldn't be on any jury. The judge will properly instruct the jury to consider the evidence in its totality. Jurors can't throw out evidence merely because they don't like the proponent of the evidence.
Wonder if it has something to do with the Samantha case...I bet it does.
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.