VAN DAM MURDER VERDICT [VERDICT IN: GUILTY!]

ABC radio

[wallcrawlr]

I just heard this at noon.

[AppyPappy]

His wife refused to cooperate if the death penalty was involved. I have no idea what he got.

[crystalk]

Yeah, but I'm lovable anyway, and my predictions almost always come out right.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How do you know he is a "basically good man?"

[AppyPappy]

I know of the evidence and it isn't enough IMHO. They never placed him with her. A few hairs and gulps aren't enough. His failure to testify was his biggest mistake.

[Henrietta]

You think he's not guilty? I haven't followed the details of the trial, but thought there was overwhelming forensic evidence. What do you see that I missed?

LOL! You missed everything!

[Henrietta]

You think he's not guilty? I haven't followed the details of the trial, but thought there was overwhelming forensic evidence. What do you see that I missed?

LOL! You missed everything!

[FresnoDA]

BREAKING NEWS....

BREAKING SMOKEY NEWS: WESTERFIELD VERDICT REACHED..Announcment at 11:00 A.M.

[KnutCase]

Make sure you spell it right.

[marajade]

They had blood DNA evidence... That isn't enough?

[SoCal Pubbie]

" The prosecution must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt."

If you served on a murder one jury, you should know it's reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sounds like like an OJ jury.

[AppyPappy]

you should know it's reasonable doubt

Whatever.

[cynicalman]

His failure to testify was his biggest mistake

I agree. The biggest mistake of his life if he is not guilty.

[ican'tbelieveit]

You definitely shouldn't spout that LIE to people who have followed this case. THERE WAS NO BLOOD.

[twigs]

I hope you're right. I'm still not convinced of Westerfield's innocence, but the prosecution did not prove its case. When I sat on a jury in a criminal trial, we all believed that the verdict could have gone either way. 50/50. We didn't know. But two things convinced us to render a "not guilty" verdict. We had reasonable doubt and the morals of the mother in the case led us to believe that she could be lying. The man was no champ, but the presumption of innocence was on his side.

[small voice in the wilderness]

The prosecution must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Really? When did this change?? I thought it was beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

[luckodeirish]

I had read (LA Times) and heard (radio) that there was blood in the RV and blood on his jacket that was a DNA match w/ Danielle. Is that incorrect information?

[AppyPappy]

They never placed him with the blood. It's not like they found semen in her which would prove intercourse. If they had found HIS DNA on her, that would be the match they need.

[general_re]

Gotcha - she agreed to cooperate if the prosecutor ditched the idea of the death penalty. Just hypothetically speaking though, if they had asked, would you have felt comfortable sentencing him to death?

I'm truly not trying to put you on the spot - I'm just curious about what that experience is like. We all talk about capital punishment basically in the abstract, and even if you didn't actually have to face that decision, I've never known anyone who had the potential for it like you did...

[Politicalmom]

So what? It shows she was there at SOME POINT. The dogs did not hit on the blood. IF it was fresh, they would have.

[marajade]

There wasn't any blood? I thought they DNA tested the blood recovered on his jacket?

Hair evidence is still considered just as valid as blood evidence in relation to DNA.