VAN DAM MURDER VERDICT [VERDICT IN: GUILTY!]

ABC radio

[Joe Hadenuf]

Great job to the jury in California! Excellent!

[P-Marlowe]

The scarey thing is that we apparently now live in your world, where if you stop to help a child with a bleeding nose, and she later turns up missing, you can face the death penalty for your kindness.

No, that wouldn't happen. Because you would take the stand and explain that to the jury. Westerfield's refusal to take the stand left the jury with the fact that the evidence that they saw was UNEXPLAINED!

Do you think Westerfield helped Danielle with a bloody nose? If you do, I've got some stock in Arthur Anderson I'd like to sell you.

You may be free to refuse to take the stand. That is your constitutional right. But if you leave evidence unexplained by your refusal to take the stand, then you deserve to be convicted. Period. End of Argument.

The jury had the evidence and Westerfield refused to refute it in his own words.

I just hope to God that the Avilla jury isn't composed of fruitcakes like you.

[Eva]

Your rant against Westerfield defenders does not sound rational. Maybe you should get some help. I don't mean this as a flame. I am serious.

[Peach]

Were you responding to the wrong post? What part of my comments about Westerfield could you possibly consider bigoted? Do you know what that word even means?

[Freedom2specul8]

"What you "saw" was a mob mentality."

I compared to to gang style mentality to cappsmaddness. We are on the same wavelength..

[fiddlesticks]

Forensic entomology is actually a very new science that is in its infancy stage. There are only a handful of "experts" in the entire country.

[NEBO]

Laura Ingle of KFI 640 am in Los Angeles (same station Rush is on) was at the trial and she reported on the John & Ken Show about the porn. They reported it. There was a particularly disturbing porn tape the jury witnessed that they read the transcript on John & Ken show. It was of a middle aged man and a VERY YOUNG LITTLE girl being raped by him. I suppose these girls are really being raped in these videos, I don't think 6 or 7 year old girls ACT in these videos. She was nude, tied up, spread eagle on the bed. He was standing there talking to her saying "What a sweet little (word deleted). Girls like you didn't even look at me when I was young."

The girls in these videos were brutally raped in every orafice. This is the porn he had carefully filed on his computer. This is only ONE of them. It was very damning evidence. Before they read this over the air they warned listeners to turn it off if they chose to.

[NYCVirago]

Hmm, well, I do fault the OJ jury in the sense that I think they were quite wrong. But juries rarely are in big criminal cases. Murder has the way of focussing the minds of even the silliest jurors. A lot of what's going on in this thread are flights of fancy that, if one had to focus on a real body and a real murder case, might be extinguished by the cold sober reality.

I've been lurking on this and the "smokey backroom" thread today, but I want to comment on this. I recently served on a jury for a semi-noteworthy murder trial in NYC, we found the defendant guilty, but myself and at least one other juror cried after the verdict was read. I understand that some of the juries in this case cried as well, and several posters have suggested that the jurors must have felt compelled to convict an innocent man. I don't know exactly what they were thinking, but in my case, I cried because the magnitude of the situation was overwhelming -- a woman was stabbed to death, her estranged boyfriend did it, and they had a three-year-old child who would live her life with one parent dead, and the other parent in prison. I had no doubts whatsoever as to the murderer's guilt, and after hearing about the evidence we didn't get to hear in trial, I felt even better about my vote.

And one other thing -- I've often heard it said that if the jury looks right at the defendant before delivering the verdict, they think he's innocent, and if they look away, they're going to vote him guilty. I looked straight at the defendant the whole time the verdict was being read, as I thought he might rush security and try to make a run for it!

[truth_seeker]

Appellate work is ALL I do, and I agree with P-Marlowe. That verdict's not going to be overturned.

Is is logical that Feldman would advise his client of the poor prospect for appeal?

Then to ask his client to consider confessing during the penalty phase, asking for his life to be spared, because he was in an alcohol induced blackout during the murder, and due to lack of capacity, he couldn't have pre-meditated?

[IrishRainy]

"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."

No, once again, Peach, YOU haven't been paying attention. If there were hand scratches on his arms, why did they find NOTHING under her fingernails (i.e., DNA evidence)? You know, the same fingernails that were attached to the hands that they CUT OFF to rehydrate her skin so they could get fingerprints to compare to those found in the MH.

[truth_seeker]

The porn verdict was dated 13 Aug. 2002.

And you replied to me:

That is a piece to the puzzle.

Awe, shucks. I'm just another one of the lameheaded folks who couldn't possibly get it right, for I wasn't one of the self-annointed daily threadfollowing "experts."

FYI it was read in court today. Surprised you missed it.

I'll now quietly slink back into my media induced, ignorant stupor. Here is a little hint for you: a lot of folks followed the trial JUST AS CLOSELY AS THE SAVEDAVE GANG.

We drew different conclusions; the same ones the jury drew.

[BoomerBob]

Even if DW were broke, how is that indicative of guilt or innocence? Have you considered there are other reasons why DW would have signed over his house and patent rights i.e. protecting those assets from civil lawsuits.

[IrishRainy]

Ever hear of Dale Akiki? Happened right in old San Diego in the mid 90s. He was convicted and in prison for 18 months -- then found out they had the wrong guy. He proclaimed his innocence from day one, but of course he was guilty as sin, at least according to the SDPD and the media. Turns out it was pretty circumstantial and boy did they have egg on their faces when he was freed. Don't know if they publically apologized to him or not, but if it was me I would have sued them big time. There have been other cases along that line, such as the Navy dad who supposedly raped his young daughter (don't recall his name) but it turns out someone else confessed to it, so even a conviction will not convince me that DW is a monster. Until he confesses, there are just too many holes in the prosecution's story for me to buy it.

[truth_seeker]

I don't see how he can possibly get a new trial. Ideas?

You are the attorney. You are the one who is supposed to tell us your ideas. Got any of your own?

(You are the only known attorney I have found on this topic, over the duration, who thinks the man is innocent). Maybe you should take on a pro bono effort, to supply the defense with the bases, for appeal.

Hint: Go look in the Smokey Backroom--it's all there, intertwined with all of the usual ranting, namecalling, insults, ridicule, slander. Good hunting, counselor.

[truth_seeker]

Give it up FresnoDA, you're just appearing more and more a buffoon every time you type.

A buffoon, in a state of obsession, doesn't think he is a buffoon. But buffoon for sure, way beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attention, any attention, more attention, bad attention, but give him attention!!

[truth_seeker]

The scarey thing is that we apparently now live in your world, where if you stop to help a child with a bleeding nose, and she later turns up missing, you can face the death penalty for your kindness.

I liked the Constitution so much better.

You should be awfully angry that the defendant had such a careless attorney, who failed to find the means, to introduce your plausible explanation.

The man got his trial, as provided under the Constitution. He has appeal rights. He was (speedily, as he elected) tried by a jury, of his peers, all as under the Constitution.

[lavaroise]

I hope they all drop dead, frankly. I'd like to see 'em lined up for the needle behind Westerfield. I think they're all fellow travelers.

This sort of people should be treated as terrorists. They enforce their jihads and sex proselytism in guerrilla style. It is so obvious, yet people want to treat them as regular criminals.... unbelievable.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I'm not sure how his honest testimony, which would probably be something like "I was in a drunken blackout most of that night and remember nothing," would help.

[Greg Weston]

As far I can remember Akiki had no DNA, fingerprints, hair or fibers pointing right at him being guilty, unlike your boy Westerfield. To compare the 2 cases is just plain dumb.

[P-Marlowe]

You're right. Testimony like that would not have helped. Because if he was in that drunken of a stupor he could not have testified that he was in a drunken stupor.

You Westerfield defenders just amaze me. You all act like Hillary and Bill defenders. You ignore the evidence and rely solely on your emotions.

Crystalk knows he's not guilty because she watched the whole trial and he just "looked like an innocent man wronged." Geez, Ted Bundy looked like a boy scout. Jeffrey Dahmer looked like a Boy Scout leader. Wayne Gacy looked like a ...Westerfield. Hmmmm.

Very few Child Molester Murderers look like murderers. They look like people.