VAN DAM MURDER VERDICT [VERDICT IN: GUILTY!]

ABC radio

[wallcrawlr]

I just heard this at noon.

[Peach]

You don't read very carefully do you? Perhaps you don't listen well either. I saw replays of both experts testify. Are you suggesting that CTV "doctored" the tapes? Get real. Give over some "evidence" and transcripts or I'll just assume you're another disrupter.

[agrandis]

I don't believe it's likely that Westerfield was the one who put the body where it was found. That's what bugs me about this whole thing.

My hunch is the following scenario: Westerfield molested the child with the sick "parent's" permission. He killed her, and they covered up their own crimes, which included dumping the body.

Whatever the scenario, something ain't right, based on the entomological data, and the fact that the crime was too clean in every way. Westerfield doesn't seem like a safe person to have in a neighborhood, but neither do the "parents."

[checkessential]

good response. So.. someone is lying, or their sporce is a POS. I said my source was daily highlight tapes on KFI and several hours of the broccoli jocks reviewing the testimony.

what is your source

[Amore]

I applaud your remarks, and I share your views. As you say, in real-life crimes there are always things that don't line up perfectly neatly. That's why you've got to look at the whole case. And realize that it IS real life, not a mystery novel --- where every time something is out of place it has a deeper meaning.

[OldFriend]

Don't leave........we need the sane folks like you.......

[bvw]

As the ONLY motive suggested for murder in this case, the child porn is of the most dubious -- that is, reasonably doubted -- value. Not one psychological expert or student of criminal behaviours testified as to such a wild compulsive effect of porn, even "child" porn. Not one pattern of known and established criminal behaviour -- see the porn, kidnap, rape and murder the child -- was stated in trial.

As a motive the porn was at best a hypothetical motive, far from an established motive, far from established as to the defendant's behaviour. It was a hyped, it was hyper hyped, there was a barrage of hype "The Child Porn!, The Porn!". It was all hype!

In this case, before the Jury, the porn was only prejudical. Without expert tesimony as to its effect, without clear demonstration as to Westerfield's past actions after viewing it -- (if he did to any extent!) -- that even were suggestive of the motivated crime claimed here ... there was nothing.

The porn charge, the entering of the porn into evidence were all highly prejudicial to the defendant without adding to probative value.

[TankerKC]

OK. No, I get how it all works. I guess I misread cynicalman's position. Getting 12 people to agree on ANYTHING is what amazes me. The chance of having one idiot in a group of 12 is pretty high.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Valpal1]

The porn was not the motive, bvw, it was evidence of the the motive,-a sexual interest in children-

The kidnaping of children for sexual purposes, is the #1 reason for non-family abductions. So the motive is and was sexual and the porn was evidence of that sexual interest.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[bvw]

When was the last time Westerfield was reported to have viewed the porn? How many images were there that the Jury found of "child" porn? How much of the porn was adult, and how much and how often did Westerfield "use" it?

The men who kipnap kids for sex, what do their collections of porn look like? Were they similar to Westerfields in ratios? Did westerfield have other material besides CD's and zip disks that were pornographic? Which child-sex-abductors are there know that only have computer files?

Where is Westerfield's collection of momentos?

Where was the expert testimony that would have explained this?

Without that expert testimony to substantiate your claims, the Jury -- imo -- gave to much weight to and was poisoned by the porn and prejudice.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Exactly right. Westerfield was guilty of this murder. No question, which is why the jury finally, after lots of deliberation, found him so. I am elated that the Jury system really does work and that this preditor and sexual criminal has been found guilty.

[HAL9000]

That's your assertion. Prove it.

I'll try to encourage some journalists and professional researchers to look into it. Hopefully, the results will be reported by Associated Press, New York Times, etc.

[Valpal1]

The jury saw the porn, all of it, and made their own conclusions. GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.

They had access to the directory printouts, how much of what, where, etc. GUILTY.

bvw, he was convicted of possession of material depicting minors engaged in sexual activity. I guess the child porn really was porn, too bad.

[winodog]

I believe he signed over his house and all his wordly possesions to Feldman who is probaly the most expensive defense attorney in SD.

[cyncooper]

Don't leave........we need the sane folks like you.......

Needs to be said again.

[Taliesan]

But reasonable doubt isn't a fanciful doubt.

Profound. This bit of logical sense would idiot-proof a lot of juries.

The problem is that most juries have members who are simply not inteleligent enough to understand the concept of "reasonable doubt".

[nycgal]

I predict that over the next few weeks/months some jurors will read through the testimony and threads,such as these on FR, and come to the horrible realization that they convicted an innocent man.

I've always wondered why jurors weren't allowed to read the transcripts and had to sit through readbacks instead. A careful reading and analysis creates a better understanding of what was testified to, IMO. And yes, I have been on a jury and a forelady to boot.

[Luis Gonzalez]

May Westerfield burn in hell.

[FreeTheHostages]

Guys, guys, I meant out of this thread. I didn't mean out of Freep. But c'mon, we're in the 600s, by now all that are left are the people who are altogether too intrigued by this.

Re trying a porn charge with a murder charge: you can do that. There's nothing unconstitutional or prejudicial about it even if the two weren't related. If I rob a store and then I go out the next day and kill a puppy, there is absolutely no reason that prosecutors can't bring those two charges together in one case. The rationale and reasons for "severance," as lawyers call it, create a very narrow exception in the law that isn't present here. Westerfield's guilty of both murder and porn. The jury didn't have to decide if they were related.

I strongly suspect that those of you who are even suggesting that perhaps Westerfield wasn't into porn are going to eating your words in the penalty phase: bet we'll find out more then. But even here there was enough for 12 citizens to find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

All you people who think I've been sane and agree that Westerfield is guilty, hear this: there's a time-honored tradition of respecting jury verdicts. That's why although I disagree with the OJ verdict, I don't spend a lot of breadth criticizing it. I think that we all have to respect jury verdicts and that it hurts the integrity of the legal system for everyone to pretend they should be the 13th juror. I think this trial was fair. I think all citizens should respect the verdict. I don't think a jury verdict should be the opening phase in an ongoing debate. The jury has spoken. All the rest remains for the court of appeals. If you disagree with the way that works, well, you could try to change it. Posting here in cyberspace won't change anything though.

[bvw]

What can I say. They did see it, they did make that judgement. I have not, you have not -- we've heard echoes of what it was, but that is all. Still, it was prejudicial without the expert testiomny or established pattern to make it substantial.

Did they hang a man for looking at nasty pictures?

The noose was supposedly reserved for dread murderers.

[Bush2000]

I'll try to encourage some journalists and professional researchers to look into it. Hopefully, the results will be reported by Associated Press, New York Times, etc.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You do that, Hal. And while you're at it, ask them to survey whether most Apple users are gay.