Skip to comments.
Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found
San Diego Union Tribune ^
| September 17, 2002
| J. Harry Jones
Posted on 09/17/2002 5:28:16 AM PDT by Bug
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 641-655 next last
To: CW_Conservative
Why have a trial, what is the point? He was found guilty, remember?
101
posted on
09/17/2002 8:35:46 AM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Jaded
That link was a real trip down memory lane. Back when you were still on the fence.
I didn't put much stock in it back then because it was to vague and mixed up with the binocs and other stuff which sounded imbellished as it was endlessly repeated through LE circles.
However this article is very explicit in naming who, when, where, and what, right down to the brand of map handed to the defense lawyers. That at least gives it the appearance of being a more accurate version of the rumor that has been around for 6 months.
To me it's just another rumor that has been confirmed, just like the swinging.
Are you going to stick with the SNDFF side of the fence? It is only going to become more clear that Westerfield is the killer as more information comes out of the unsealed documents and closed hearings.
102
posted on
09/17/2002 8:40:19 AM PDT
by
Valpal1
To: Roscoe
He was found guilty, remember? Exactly, so why are anonymous law enforcement sources commenting on a case that they won? Why are they hiding? Why not come out and take a bow on a job well done?
To: Amore
At least we know the main reason Westerfield didn't testify. Attorneys are not permitted to put a witness on the stand when they know that witness will lie. Had DW insisted on testifying, Feldman would have been able to properly withdraw has the defense attorney and that would have sealed, right then and there, DW's conviction.
To: connectthedots
No, you're mistaken. Feldy would not have had to withdraw and would not have been allowed to withdraw at that stage of the proceedings. There are procedures set up for these occasions. As I recall from long ago law school classes, basically, DW goes on the stand and tells his story by himself. Feldy is not allowed ethically to participate in helping DW tell a story Feldy knows is untrue. So if this story about the plea pans out (as I expect it will), I'm sure that contributed to DW's decision not to testify. Feldy would have told him that ethically he could not participate in the lies.
105
posted on
09/17/2002 8:49:50 AM PDT
by
Amore
To: CW_Conservative
Exactly, so why are anonymous law enforcement sources commenting on a case that they won? I may be wrong but I think its considered bad form for any lawyer to discuss negotiations that take place with another lawyer. I can understand why the prosecuting atty's would want this info out and also prefer to avoid getting into discussing the specifics of conversations with other attorneys.
I'm not an atty but I have stayed in a Howard Johnsons.
To: tetelestai
It's very troubling to think that he had a chance to walk even after offering to show where the body was. How do you equate life w/o parole to "walking"?
107
posted on
09/17/2002 8:55:36 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: Bug
It's sad but this scum still has another 20 years of life as he runs out his appeals while on death row. I prefer sure, swift and certain punishment. The man who tried to kill FDR in 1933 was executed 33 days later. His errant bullet killed the mayor of Chicago Anton Cermak who was in the motorcade.
http://www.graveyards.com/bohemian/cermak.html
108
posted on
09/17/2002 8:57:03 AM PDT
by
dennisw
To: dighton
(1) Westerfield was railroaded. The case wasn't made against him, except by encouraging a mindset of "presumption of guilt" and insisting that the defense prove he didn't do it.
(2) The Jury -- at least the two seen on Van Sustern last night, were (imo) slacker spoiled brats, all to willing to buy in to the railroading. That can and does heppen -- not every jury is perfect, and that's why we have a system of appeals.
(3) If this thread is anything, it is a demonstration of the pack mentality at work. There are packs on both sides of the issue. If anyone counts themselves as a memebr of either side without looking hard into the case himself -- well, that person is no help to anyone and hasn't anything but discord to the threads. And, I think a *statiscal* count will show -- (admittedly I'm not making one, just stating a close observer's hunch) -- that the posters most willing to state and restate an "opnion" on the case without any evidence of self-study in the case are the hang-em-high crowd. Is Free Republic become a haven and home of a bunch of cheerleaders and a yapping mob of followers?
* * * * *
If Westerfield did murder the girl, why was this trial such a farce? Most on this thread so far say "Justice" was served -- and if he did murder, that is true to some extent, yet even in that case why was this trial as much a farce as the OJ trial? A prejudiced jury in that OJ trial returned the verdict by seemingly according to its prejudice, and a prejudiced jury in this Westerfield trial returned its verdict seemingly according to its prejudice.
The bug evidence was given by the field's best experts -- it is not so dismissable as the two jury dilettantes let have in their interview -- and there are dozens and dozens of men and women convicted on the basis of it's science. The folks who casually deride it -- that is foolish.
Who says Westerfield is innocent? Those who want to mock unfairly those -- like me -- who believe that according to the standards of presumption of innocence requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that a proper verdict was "Not Guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt]".
109
posted on
09/17/2002 9:00:14 AM PDT
by
bvw
To: Valpal1
Freepmail.....
110
posted on
09/17/2002 9:05:29 AM PDT
by
Jaded
To: bvw
My sentiments also. I sure hope he was the killer, cause he will eventually pay the price for this crime - whether or not he really did it. (If someone else was the real culprit, can anyone imagine that fact ever coming to light in this lifetime?)
I believe the railroad whistle has sounded and the holdout jurors - both phases - were overwhelmed by the others - in violation of their oaths. You supporters of these verdicts better hope you are never accused of a crime.
To: VRWC_minion
You are correct. It is "bad form". Also, the rules of evidence generally preclude statements made during the course of settlement negotiations from being introduced at trial.
To: bvw
Thank you for saying that.
One of the aspects of this trial that troubles me is Dusek's comment that the prosecution didn't have to prove anything. Danielle was dead and HE did it and that was all they needed to be concerned about. What a blow to our system of justice and the presumption of innocence and the delicate balance between the rule of law and anarchy!
113
posted on
09/17/2002 9:19:00 AM PDT
by
Helen
To: dighton
Where's UCANSEE2 and others??
114
posted on
09/17/2002 9:20:25 AM PDT
by
TamiPie
To: Kevin Curry
Ha ha ha, Kevin.
You thinking of becoming Nancy Grace's staff writer? :-)
To: Bug
"Justice not served? Those Freepers who thought he was innocent might want to reconsider. He was going to tell police where the body was located. How would a man innocent of the crime know where the body was?"
justice served?....putting on a million dollar trial which will be followed by many millions in appeals which the state will pay for and will put all families thru this horror again and again....and that is JUSTICE?
would a wise court have pushed for the plea, not have a trial , not put the parents of the victim, and the young perp on the stand to humiliate them , and banish the perp to the depts of the prison system...
The DA was up for re-election ....that is what all this circus was about.....
116
posted on
09/17/2002 9:23:46 AM PDT
by
cherry
To: Kevin Curry
"The trap was thus set and sprung and an innocent man was sacrificed to protect an evil (is there any other kind?) statist cabal. "
If DW overhead anything about someone else doing it..he's gotta be a first rate dumbass for not telling the jury.
To: cherry
i meant to say the young children of the perp....they were devatated by the trial but I guess the court system is all about devastating as many people as possible to make themselves look good...
election year....period1
118
posted on
09/17/2002 9:31:04 AM PDT
by
cherry
To: redlipstick; Amore
"
IMO, you've got your "more explosive than a confession" right here. "
I'm telling ya, I don't think feldman would say ANYTHING to harm his client ..and that would be harmful. I still maintain it's gotta be a 3rd party issue. I'm now thinking it was just something to throw everyone off.
To: Jaded
You must have gotten flamed by someone on the save dave side cuz it's hurtful to dw. We did know this rumor was floating around. That didn't mean it was true.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 641-655 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson