[VRWC_minion]

I think if you believe someone else dumped the body, then you really have to acquit Westerfield. There would simply be too many unanswered questions to convict him.

Why ? If he had an accomplice is not guilty ? I don;t get it. If I rob a bank and someone else drives, I must be acquited ?

[John Jamieson]

Because the prosecution has not presented that theory as they must in cases involving more than one person. I don't think Dusek is allowed to change he's theory from what he presented in his opening statement that DW was the sole perpetrator.

[cynwoody]

Why ? If he had an accomplice is not guilty ? I don;t get it. If I rob a bank and someone else drives, I must be acquited ?

Of course not. The gas chamber had two seats, didn't it?

If he had an accomplice, then there should be an extra seat at the defense table, and the prosecution needs to convince the jury that's what went down.

But the prosecution in the present case has not introduced any evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy. Thus, if it is shown that someone else dumped the body, you can't therefore jump to the conclusion that the body dumper was DW's accomplice. On the contrary, the new evidence raises serious doubt about the prosecution's whole theory of the case.

[connectthedots]

If the prosecution has not alleged that DW had an accompice, and DW could not have dumped the body (based on expert testimony), DW must be acquitted.