VAN DAM MURDER VERDICT [VERDICT IN: GUILTY!]

ABC radio

[wallcrawlr]

I just heard this at noon.

[Freedom2specul8]

Ignore all the evidence, and verdict and get the investigation into the corruption started. That's the only thing that's going to ease your mind.

Answer these questions for me without inflammatory language..just straight facts with evidence to back it up..
WRT:CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACIES
WHO
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW
WHY
MOTIVE

[Amore]

Thanks for weighing in on the attorneys-who-believe-DW-is-guilty side!

Yep, Feldy had little to work with, and did the best he could. But of course they'll be the inevitable claims that Feldy provided ineffective assistance down the collateral road. (Ha! Most defendants should be so lucky as to get such good representation).

But the fact that Judge Mudd wasn't another Judge Ito and wouldn't let Feldy get away with a bunch of baloney is only further evidence to the other side that he is part of that evil conspiracy by all the SD authorities against DW.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

"On his crosses, many of his questions were objected to and sustained by the Court. This, alone, demonstrates to the jury that the defense is strugling."

Or, that the defense is being railroaded.

[Freedom2specul8]

So you have heard of that machine? I kept thinking, how does this guy do this without losing his voice or getting a sore throat.

[Freedom2specul8]

Otherwise, it's time to let go....

[FreeTheHostages]

You know, I think Free Republic should have a separate place for conspiracy theorists. We could call it: "The Smokey Back Room on Planet Zertox." :)

[cyncooper]

we found the defendant guilty, but myself and at least one other juror cried after the verdict was read.

Thank you for your post. I, too, served on a jury years ago. Two defendents, second degree murder. We found them guilty. Several of the women on the jury, including myself, cried after the verdict, although not until we returned to the jury room.

I, too, saw the posts saying jurors would not cry if they were sure of their verdict. WRONG. We were positive our verdict was correct. But as you say, the sense of responsibility and the magnitude of the situation is enormous. It is something jurors do not take lightly.

For the same reason I have posted several times that I am very confident that the jurors are following the judges orders regarding discussing the trial and are also avoiding media coverage to the best of their ability.

[ContemptofCourt]

Ah, saw that coming. You must be kidding me. If he could establish relevance, then he can get some of those questions in. He was grasping at straws.

[ContemptofCourt]

This is the most damning argument of all, from the prosecution's closing:

AND NOW THE BIG ONE. NOW THE BIG ONE. THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN RIGHT HERE. THIS JACKET. THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN. DANIELLE'S BLOOD IS ON THAT JACKET. AND AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS YESTERDAY AND PART OF THE DAY BEFORE, THIS WASN'T TOUCHED. HOW IT GOT THERE. THIS WASN'T TOUCHED AT ALL. GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION. YOU HAVE TO BE SITTING THERE, GIVE ME ANOTHER EXPLANATION OF HOW IT GOT THERE. PLEASE. YOU DIDN'T HEAR ONE. NOT ONE. THE ATTACK YOU HEARD WAS THAT THERE WERE NO PHOTOGRAPHS EXCEPT MAYBE A POLAROID.WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT I BELIEVE THIS WAS ONE AND THREE-SIXTEENTHS INCHES LONG ON HIS JACKET. DANIELLE'S BLOOD. NO DISPUTE. NO DEFENSE EVIDENCE THAT IT'S NOT DANIELLE'S BLOOD. IT CAN ALWAYS BE RETESTED. THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN. THIS IS THE HARD EVIDENCE. AND NO EXPLANATION BECAUSE THERE IS NONE EXCEPT THAT HE DID IT. DANIELLE BLED ON HIM. AND YOU GOT TO WONDER WHERE ELSE. WE KNOW ONE PLACE WHERE ELSE, ON THE CARPETING IN THE MOTOR HOME. WHERE ELSE.

The jury wanted an explanation, and did not get one. Hence, their decision.

[Freedom2specul8]

NEW DISCUSSION THREAD.....

[cynwoody]

"Hi. I'm John Wayne Gacy.

Do I look like a child murderer to you?"

No, you look like a harmless local Democrat party hack. Right Ros?

[Freedom2specul8]

heh heh

[Freedom2specul8]

They didn't get an explanation for the blood, the prints, the fibers, the child porn...NOTHING from the defense.

[bvw]

FreeTH, you say you were a prosecutor for 8 years -- was that under Poppa Doc in Haiti? Just wondering? And besides hanging around Dupontville, what do you do? Are you in good standing with any US Bar? Not the neon-lighted ones, I mean.

Perhaps you joined some tobakky settlement and have nothing to do all day but take out the garbage and feed the cats in a $250 robe and Gucci loafers.

[FreeTheHostages]

FreeTH, you say you were a prosecutor for 8 years -- was that under Poppa Doc in Haiti.

I was a federal prosecutor in one of the most esteemed U.S. Attorney's Offices in the country after graduating magna cum laude from a prestiguous law school.

But that's not why Westerfield's guilty and you're wrong. The jury has spoken.

[bvw]

So you are, by lack of response, a well-dressed layabout and cat-feeding dilettante?

[FreeTheHostages]

Re where was I a prosecutor -- I've answered. But you'll note I'm not joining Amore's point that more lawyers here agree that Westerfield is guilty. Because I was a jury trial lawyer. And I understand who decides who's guilty in America. And I'm not sure I would trust a bunch of my Ivy League law school classmates to do that vote. I trust 12 Americans, good common-sense Americans without some weird psychological chip on their shoulder.

In my experience, juries rarely let you down. When Barbara Olson, God rest her soul, tried sex crimes as a federal prosecutor, and she did in the District of Columbia, she almost always won. If she were alive, if she hadn't died at the Pentagon, I'm sure she'd agree with me: the people who get these decisions right on juries are plain old non-over-educated Americans. I think it's fair to say I had to overcome a propensity to over-think things and stop being so enamoured with the complexities of mystery novels -- and just perceive reality straight on, with common sense -- to become a good jury lawyer. I would say that my excellent academic performance -- which you questioned without knowing me, ha, that should really indicate to you how many inferential leaps your mind is taking on in this post -- if anything perhaps interferred at first with me understanding how the criminal mind works and how police do their job.

Often, in closing argument, I would warn against people who engaged in narcisstic self-indulgence, who wanted to come up with some weird and twisted theory of innocence because they were more worried about establishing their intellectual brilliance than doing justice -- the kind of people we have much of in this city. And the way I would do it is to praise the jury in advance for something they had. I would say: "You all here are chosen to serve. You may ask yourself Why? You bring to the table something very, very important. You bring your common sense. Guard it and use it carefully. Help your fellow jurors, as you deliberate, to use their common sense too. It will lead you to the truth."

I know conservatives some times may a fashion of decrying juries as idiots. Well, when 12 people place a check on each other's thinking, my experience was they almost always did the right thing together. I believe in juries. I really do. I really respected them. And just as dogs can tell if you like them, I think the juries saw that. I know of no better way to decide guilt or innocence.

[FreeTheHostages]

So you are, by lack of response, a well-dressed layabout and cat-feeding dilettante?

These are the words of someone defending a consumer of child pornographer and a murdered of a little girl. They reveal something about the people that do that here in the post. I thought it might be persuasive to others to repeat these words. Choose your company carefully, people.

[FreeTheHostages]

ping -- check out post 897. I mention you there. I'm not sure it matters here what lawyers think for the reasons I set forth above.

[Freedom2specul8]

"These are the words of someone defending a consumer" of child pornography

Don't ya know, it was legal, thanks to scotus and it was anime and it was actors and it was adults made to look like little girls? (/sarcasm off)