Replies

Yes, we had more info, more time to discuss the evidence than the jury did. Remember (1) Judge Mudd severly limited what might be brought in -- including such clearly relevant pieces as the testimony of the van Dam boys, and many others. (2) The jury could not discuss the case among themselves and explore such things as bug forensics and how dogs are used. We did extensively. (3) The jury did not have the relatvively safe haven we have here on FR to discuss the case, instead they had full media glare and harassment directed at them -- all screaming to convict Westerfield. (4) We have had time -- many have followed this case closely since January. Unlikely that the jurors have given the case that much time in consideration. (5) Finally we have had a great force multiplier -- hundreds of people active in rthe discussion and reasearch.

I'll admit that unpaid, voluntary, customer-free efforts like this are prone to spottiness. Other than that The fact that a consensus of folks -- Freepers -- have reached a conclusion that is at odds with the Jury's, and have done so after an intense and extended effort does not speak well to (1) the overly-limited facts presented to the Jury, (2) the irredeemably prejudicial allowed use of the porn and porn charges, (3) the failure of the Jury to be sequestered from the day after day barrage of misstatements and incredible prejudice against Westerfield in the local and national media.

Is there a recent famous public case known in which reasonable doubt was clearer? Hard to imagine it.

I don't care how much evidence you claim you had that the jury didn't... That isn't how the jury system works in this country... If you don't like it, move...

consensus of folks -- Freepers -- have reached a conclusion that is at odds with the Jury's

How's the weather on your planet? Count again. Freepers overwhelmingly think he's guilty.

Oh, and your reference to the porn charge as "prejudicial" is completely silly: the law doesn't prohibit evidence that's damming, just evidence that's unfairly damming. he was looking at porn and it does provide a motive for the other charges: it was surely prejudicial, but appropriately so. If prosecutors couldn't bring forth any evidence that was prejudicial to a defendant at criminal trial, they'd all just be sitting around drinking tea talking about the weather at criminal trials. Dumbest thing I've read this week, and that includes a lot of other stuff in this post.

Where did all these people come from?

This trial has certainly been an epiphany. Things are actually what they've been saying on FR for a long time.