[arm958]

Indeed. This is so wrong.

I'm new to this thread, but you people who think Westerfield is innocent are serious aren't you? Wierd.

[Steve0113]

Possibly we're more familiar with the evidence than you are.

[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.

[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?

[FreeTheHostages]

I'm new to this thread, but you people who think Westerfield is innocent are serious aren't you? Weird.

Well, there are a few but you'll notice it's just a very few who keep posting over and over and over. And some of them appear to be new not just to the thread but to Free Republic too. One of them has identified himself in a later posting as a criminal defense attorney. But I think if you took a vote in this thread, you'd find yourself in good company. So welcome to the thread and ignore the fools.

[hellinahandcart]

I'm new to this thread, but you people who think Westerfield is innocent are serious aren't you? Wierd.

Whatever you do, don't go to the Masillon threads. They're even weirder.

[IrishRainy]

"I'm new to this thread, but you people who think Westerfield is innocent are serious aren't you?"

Maybe if you weren't "new to this thread" you would know some of the disturbing facts of this case, which have lead many of us to dispute the prosecution's theories. Why don't you educate yourself about the matter first before posting your opinion, since it is pretty much worthless if it is based only on feelings or what you've heard in the media.