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.
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.
I read there was blood in the RV, was there also blood on his clothes ? What is the fiber evidence ?
Anyone who thinks Westerfield did not kidnap, rape, and murder Danielle Van Dam is:
a) an idiot
b) a former o.j. juror
c) a child molester or child molester sympathizer
d) a contrarian (taking an opposing view for the sake of taking an opposing view)
e) a person who thinks someone with a college education, a home, and a good-paying job wouldn't commit a crime like this because 'they have too much to lose'
f) johnnie cochran
g) a member of some defense lawyer organization
h)someone who thinks Mark Furhman planted the blood on Westerfield's jacket
i) someone who likes to view child pornography
j) any or all of the above.
Oh, yeah. Any defense lawyer reading the 'pro-westerfield' posts is laughing his/her a** off at your attempts to explain why he couldn't have done it. Defense lawyers have done a good job convincing people that ANY doubt is a reasonable doubt...and, hey.....any doubt that you (such a smart person..coming up with all those explanations for the evidence)..any doubt YOU have just MUST be reasonable. Yeah. You can be a big hero and be the holdout on the jury.
Circumstances are also evidence. You will rarely, if ever, be convinced of something 100 per cent. It takes courage to convict beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and NO COURAGE to find all sort of REASONS (reasonable or NOT) to explain away something.
I'm not looking for replies. Just had to get that off my chest. I have a low moron-tolerance right now.