VAN DAM MURDER VERDICT [VERDICT IN: GUILTY!]

ABC radio

[wallcrawlr]

I just heard this at noon.

[lawdude]

"...you people who think Westerfield is innocent are serious aren't you?"

There is a huge difference between innocent and the prosecutor's failure to PROVE guilty!

It is called reasonable doubt.

As a defense attorney, I find it interesting that people who have no first hand knowledge of the information produced at trial, can make a pronouncement of "guilty".

I don't know the trial evidence and how it was presented so I cannot comment. I DO believe he did it but my beliefs and the facts may be a long way apart.

In any event, the jury has spoken.

[TamiPie]

Actually, Westie will have a wealth of "friends" in prison...

[marajade]

"Now I KNOW you haven't been following the case. He signed the house over to his lawyer months ago to cover attorney fees."

I'd say 400,000 should go a long way toward paying off his legal fees then ...

[agarrett]

Obviously you weren't as much as this jury was...

  I suspect we did know more of the evidence than the jury did. We got to look at and discuss all the stuff Judge Mudd would not allow into trial. I think many of us were expecting this, but we're also expecting it to be overturned on appeal, at least partly due to the amount of exculpatory evidence Judge Mudd excluded.

Drew Garrett

[Slip18]

Who is this defense attorney on FOX. He is saying, "If Westerfield did this crime . . ." Didn't the jury just convict him?

[Spunky]

I predict DW will take the stand on appeal.

My experience with appeals is ONLY THE LAWYERS DUKE IT OUT IN FRONT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES. It is not a trial over again.

The defense lawyer has to try to convince the Superior Court Judges that something went wrong in the original trial and that is why a guilty verdict was found.

[Lurking Libertarian]

He is broke. He will not have money to hire a good lieyer for the appeal.

I'm not sure if this is true in California, but in many states the defense lawyer who handles a criminal trial must do the appeal, whether he's paid or not, unless the defendant fires him or hires another lawyer.

[Peach]

You haven't been paying attention - Danielle's blood on his jacket, in his motor home and her fingerprints in his motorhome, small hand scratches on his arm, etc. The evidence is strong, your defense of him is weak. Glad you think defending pedophiles is worthwhile.

[Aquinasfan]

Well, thank God some intelligent people on the jury were able to drag the weak-minded ones to the correct decision.

Thank God is right. I think your explanation for the delay is correct. How could anyone question the evidence?

[OldFriend]

Interesting to see folks blaming the Van Dam's for their swinging lifestyle but giving Westerfield a pass on having child pornography on his computer depicting very young children being raped.

[marajade]

Like I stated earlier in this thread... I haven't been following this case that close... Once I heard they had blood evidence I had a feeling it would be enough to bring him to conviction and I was right.

[WVNan]

I have not followed the evidence in this trial. I actually haven't followed the trial at all. But I heard enough on news reports to know that a son was involved somehow. I watched the face of Westerfield and I had a gut feeling that he was covering...sacrificing for the guilty son. The physical evidence could all have happened if he covered the crime for his son. He had the look of a determined martyr. His lack of emotion was telling. Covering for his son would also explain the time problems. I don't know......maybe justice was done, but I will always wonder.

[Steve0113]

I thought I heard that he had signed it over to his son just after he got arrested?

Where did you hear that bit of fiction?

[alnick]

Doesn't make him innocent. It creates reasonable doubt, however, IMO.

Gee, I'll bet the pedophiles will be happy to hear that children of swinger parents are legally fair game because they come equipped with reasonable doubt.

[cherry]

I for one have followed this case very close from before the finding of the body..

explain to me the hair not dw's under her body..

explain to me the dogs not alerting to the rv when they should have gone crazy if there was or had been a dead body there recently..

explain to me whose blood was in the vd home that is not identified

explain to me whose fingerprints are in the vd home that remain unidentified

explaing to me how many cops are associates of the vd's...this is only rumor but supposedly they had there cop friends in their swingers group explain to me why nothing ...nada...nill...of dw was found in the house...not one single dna cell...

explain to me why danielle's journal that read " daddy please forgive me...daddy please love me" was not considered important info..

who was the last person to see her alive?

and how can you discount all the expert testimony one from the DA's own chosing...Faulkner...who all said that the body was not there in order for dw to have done this crime..

explain all of that and you can convince me...otherwise, this jury decision makes no sense...there was no proof of dw doing this...perhaps proof of danielle in his rv but that is all.....

[ItsOurTimeNow]

I'm with you Henrietta.

No one proved how Danielle died
No one proved how DW killed her
No one proved how DW got her out of her house
No one proved how DW disposed of her body
No one proved DW is a pervert
Not one shred of evidence of DW being in the Van Dam house
Unidentified fingerprints were never sourced
Fibers were never sourced
Fibers were never dated
The scent dogs never "hit" DW being in the VD house
The scent dogs never "hit" Danielle being in the motorhome

yet, despite all this...the jury is going to send a man to his death.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

"If Westerfield did this crime . . ." Didn't the jury just convict him?

That brings up a good question. If a jury convicts, are they legally bound to stop calling him an 'alleged' murderer? In other words, is a jury verdict considered fact when reporting?

[homeschool mama]

The jury may have found him guilty on all charges...but I have nagging doubt. Call it intuition, but I truly believe he's not the guy. Not enough solid evidence.

[marajade]

What evidence was that? They had DNA evidence... This case ain't gonna win on appeal.

[newzjunkey]

Not weird just aware of the jury instuctions, that a man's life is/was at stake, that the "court of commentator spin" is meaningless oh and the evidence presented.

Objectively, the case was not proved on kidnapping: there was NEVER a spec of evidence that he was ever in the home. NONE. ZERO. NOTHING. Ninja Dave entered the occupied home, hid, kidnapped her from her bed, evaded a house full of people, a dog, and vanished without leaving a fingerprint, a hair sample--left nothing! It is not unreasonable that specs of "her" blood and fingerprint didn't get there by innocent means when she was unsupervised. The fibre evidence was circumstantial. He might have tracked that from his house after their visit into the motorhome.

The prosecution sold the jury an emotional package it could not support with the evidence: violent rape (no evidence of rape on the body; not even a determinable cause of death) in the motorhome.

Kidnapping? Murder? I can't imagine how these jurors will sleep at night. Oh, wait... they probably want to believe he's the "guy"... so they can feel safe in their own homes. IMHO, there was NEVER a presumption of innocence with regard to defendant Westerfield; as a past criminal juror this would hardly be surprising. Once again, I mourn what passed for "justice" in San Diego.

Now the question is, will Pfingst manage to ride this high profile "victory" back into the DA's office?