The child porn was a sick product of this man's habits. He CHOSE to save them. There was no way the defense could have shown that he had them innocently. Thank God child porn is illegal. I do not believe it should have been a separate trial for it because it shows what that man thinks about IN HIS LEISURE time..and he is accused of doing what the adults were doing in the films..in a round about way.
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.