Replies

I don't even think adult pornography is "OK", but it's my understanding that none of the pornography found involved prepubescent children.

Which, again, doesn't make it OK, but every time I've seen a child molestor busted (only on TV) they've had to bring boxes to haul all the child-raping porn away. No matter how computer-literate the molestors are, they always seem to have to have dead-tree copies as well. If Westerfield had nothing on dead-tree, it casts some doubt, for me at least, on the provenance of all the electronic porn.

I've cleaned too much porn off the computers of people who I KNOW did not download it deliberately to be certain of his guilt on that front.

I know the prosecution/defense can't wrap up every little loose thread & tie it in a neat bow just for me, but I'd like a few more than we've had. I hope he is really guilty, because the thought of an innocent man being destroyed by this is almost as unbearable as what Danielle must have suffered. I believe some of the legal eagles on the forum have said he can take the stand in the penalty phase next week. If he truly is innocent, he'd better. I would have risked it at trial myself.

If he truly is innocent, he'd better. I would have risked it at trial myself.

I guess you can gather from my comments hereto that my firm belief is that he won't testify.

You mention your belief that if he had child pornography once, he would have to have had it before. Due to the internet, there has been in this country an *explosion* of adult consumption of child pornography. That means, perforce, new customers coming in via the internet. You mention "boxes" of stuff being taken out. That's typical but that's not the only way. You have to reason that the reason there are members-only child porno cites that people frequent is so that they can view it on the internet and take less criminal risk by downloading (which, I believe, is a new and separate crime, the downloading).

But there's no such thing as the perfect criminal who does the typical thing. Whoever did this crime, and Danielle is dead and someone did, was an erratic monster to begin with. Criminal behavior occurs in chaotic pattern in dynamic circumstances. So the fact that a particular criminal isn't typical doesn't instill doubt in my heart. Satan has some curious ways, and we are all fallen.

I know the prosecution/defense can't wrap up every little loose thread & tie it in a neat bow just for me, but I'd like a few more than we've had.

Without, I hope, even a hint of sarcasm, let me say that this a *deeply* insightful comment. I think the doubts of some here are based upon a sincere wish for more when the State does the ultimate and deprives a citizen of their birthright of freedom of person. Of course, in every case as a prosecutor, I wished I had more too: no matter how much, why not have more. The police usually wished for this too (although some were lazy and didn't care).

I think of this in religious terms, actually. We're talking about Justice on Earth here. We're talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not talking about all doubt because we can't: we're only humans here on the planet Earth. Judgment beyond all doubt is not within our powers. All we can do is thrive as best we can in this fallen garden, which is under bad management, until we hopefully arrive at a place of perfect judgment.

The Bible says one should love the instinct to strive for justice. God is a just, the Bible says, and that means not only merciful but, when appropriate, wrathful. We are taught to love the truth and to love justice. And yet we can never, about anything at all, really know the truth. Who can know the truth of what was in Westerfield's drunken heart as he did this?

It's really a wonderful instinct, to truly want to know more and to want to be absolutely certain. I applaud it. But I don't think that on Earth we can be absolutely certain. And without law and order, we cannot have peace and welfare for our families. So the standard must be beyond a reasonable doubt. For justice-loving peoples, there's always some sincere regret that it has to be so, that we just aren't as humans capable of reaching that higher standard at this time and in this place.

Criminal defense attorneys will sometimes say at trial: Judge not lest you be judged! I would point out in response, as the prosecutor, that that passage refers to the ultimate moral judgment and what we're doing here is secular, human judgment in the criminal law. These are, while we are on Earth, two different things. Sigh: were that it was otherwise.

I believe God approves of people who think about these things you reflect upon. We should love justice and we should strive for as perfect a justice as we can -- with the cards that we are dealt.