Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
If I recall correctly, the police admitted they lied in order to get a warrant. Do you therefore discount all their testimony?
The dog guy (can't remember his name, only the "180" nickname), was shown to have lied on the stand, when he had to recant his claim that he'd told the police about the alert. Do you discount that testimony? Does it reflect badly on the prosecution?
The first bug guy, Faulkner, was hired by the prosecution, but dismissed when his findings conflicted with their theories. Does this count as dishonest, and if so, does it impact your view of the prosecution?
Now, I agree that Feldman's bit with the porn was dishonest, and he shouldn't have done it. You can even weight it against the defense - but to ignore their entire case because of it is unreasonable, unless you are willing to apply the same standard to the prosecution (in which case, as far as I can tell, there's no case at all, and we're just imagining the whole thing)
Drew Garrett
You seem to be confused about the difference between totality of the evidence and the reliability of witnesses.
Just because one side puts on a witness who a juror feels is not reliable does not mean that you can throw out any old evidence that you don't wish to consider. Jurors must consider ALL of the evidence. Jurors may, however, make judgments as to the reliability of the witnesses and their testimony by considering things like bias, motivation to fabricate, prior inconsistent testimony, prior consistent testimony, and whether the witness was capable of observing the scene accurately.
When will they be letting all the people out of jail that were convicted by an entomologist's testimony?
You're telling me with a straight face that the cops admitted to a felony in court? You mind telling me why the prosecution has ANY evidence, given that an illegal warrant was involved?
Now, I agree that Feldman's bit with the porn was dishonest, and he shouldn't have done it. You can even weight it against the defense - but to ignore their entire case because of it is unreasonable, unless you are willing to apply the same standard to the prosecution (in which case, as far as I can tell, there's no case at all, and we're just imagining the whole thing)
Well, you're the one saying that every scrap of evidence was illegally gathered.
I only get audio and what I read on these threads. Could you please clarify who you mean? Thanks,
Drew Garrett
He took a jacket (along with bedding, including comforters) first thing Monday, 2/4 morning to the drycleaners. He drove to the drycleaners in his motor home and went in wearing a t-shirt, light boxer-style shorts and barefoot(!).
The jacket was taken into custody by police *after* it was drycleaned and there was blood on it! Some was his, but one spot was hers(!!).
Oh, and the police showed up at his house after he dropped his MH off and returned home. He didn't mention the drycleaner trip to the police when he recounted his weekend activities, even though that was his last errand before taking his MH to its storage place and driving home in his SUV.
And, just like I stated, when you are asked to step forward and debate,when you have no answers and only hot air, you lose your temper and resort to even more name calling.
Please stay off the DW trial threads if you are going to act like a child.
Everyone else here is trying to keeps things reasonable, and eliminate personal attacks.
I was hoping to discuss this case with you as I had respect for what I thought you could contribute. Shows how wrong a person can be.
Experts can be bought regardless of reputations.
You seem to be extremely confused about what you think I'm confused about.
A specific witness is not the issue--but if that witness lies, that's fini for the guy's testimony, IMNHO.
This was the counsel that lied. That gives me pause to question the entire case, not just one witness.
Just because one side puts on a witness who a juror feels is not reliable does not mean that you can throw out any old evidence that you don't wish to consider.
If the evidence is being presented by someone who's been caught lying, the evidence is essentially worthless.
Jurors must consider ALL of the evidence. Jurors may, however, make judgments as to the reliability of the witnesses and their testimony by considering things like bias, motivation to fabricate, prior inconsistent testimony, prior consistent testimony, and whether the witness was capable of observing the scene accurately.
And when counsel lies, I need to consider WHY a particular witness was put on the stand--i.e., what was the counsel's bias, motivation to fabricate, et cetera.
Do you see the magnitude of difference here? When an officer of the court attempts to lie to the jury and gets caught, there's ground for questioning every single element of that side's case.
Loads of assumptions. All of which need to be considered in light of physical evidence that puts Danielle in the RV.
Like the Van Dam's, their witnesses, and the police ?
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.