Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | September 17, 2002 | J. Harry Jones

[John Jamieson]

Most of us didn't claim his innocence, although we were certainly put in that box.

We claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the case "beyong a reasonable doubt". There is a huge difference.

I am particular bothered by the 4 bugsperts who said he could not have dumped the body and the lack of any rational explaination of how he grabber her. A lot of evidence points to more than one perp.

[John Jamieson]

I see nothing in the article that says that DW said he knew where the body was. You're reading a little more into it than is even there.

[Valpal1]

J.J. not one of the experts testified that he "couldn't have" dumped the body. Your spinning your POV, not their actual statements.

[Freedom2specul8]

Reasonable doubt..

The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. (By contrast, in non-criminal cases, such as an accident or breach of contract, a plaintiff has to prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence -- anything over 50%.) As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is reasonable doubt -- that is, that the prosecutor hasn't done a sufficient job of proving that the defendant is guilty. Sometimes, however, a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.

---

http://www.state.nh.us/courts/rules/misc/misc-1.htm
A "reasonable doubt" is just what the words would ordinarily imply. The use of the word "reasonable" means simply that the doubt must be reasonable rather than unreasonable; it must be a doubt based on reason. It is not a frivolous or fanciful doubt, nor is it one that can easily be explained away. Rather, it is such a doubt based upon reason as remains after consideration of all the evidence that the State has offered against it. The test you must use is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

---

SO, what is unreasonable doubt?

[John Jamieson]

The value of LE/PRESS information:

I followed the drama of the 3 "terrorists"/medstudents last week.

The LE/PRESS reported the licience plate was stolen.
The LE/PRESS reported 2 bomb sniffing dogs alerted.
The LE/PRESS reported they ran the toll booth.
The LE/PRESS reported a bomb detenator was found.

All turned out to be BS. Is there a lesson here?

[VRWC_minion]

Good scientific evidence should have the same value on either side.

Even when the theory it is in direct contradiction to the physical evidence ?

[Amore]

No, I'm drawing the logical inferences from what is said:

Minutes before Danielle van Dam's remains were found Feb. 27, David Westerfield's lawyers were brokering a deal with prosecutors:

He would tell police where he dumped the 7-year-old girl's body; they would not seek the death penalty.

Law enforcement sources told The San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday defense lawyers Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce were negotiating for a life sentence for the 50-year-old design engineer, a neighbor of the van Dams in Sabre Springs.

The deal they were discussing would have allowed Westerfield to plead guilty to murder and be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, said the officials, who spoke on condition they not be identified.

Prosecutors were seriously considering the bargain when Danielle's body was discovered off Dehesa Road that afternoon, nearly four weeks after she disappeared from her bedroom.

"The deal was just minutes away," one of the sources said. It was aborted, but details were confirmed yesterday soon after a San Diego Superior Court jury recommended the death penalty for Westerfield.

Obviously, your saying all that occurred was that the prosecution offered such a deal and DW said, "how could I possible agree? I don't know where the body is" is inconsistent with what the LEO sources say happened.

[Valpal1]

The LE/PRESS reported the parents were swingers.
The LE/PRESS reported the parents smoked dope.
The LE/PRESS reported they invited strangers home.

All turned out to be true. Your point is?

[John Jamieson]

"J.J. not one of the experts testified that he "couldn't have" dumped the body."

I didn't say the bug experts said that, did I? I don't think the bug experts determined anything expect a range of dates that the body could have been dumped.

Based on my analysis of their combined testimony and the fact that the police had DW under 24 hour electronic watch, it is my personal conclusion that "DW could not have dumped the body". Is that more clear?

[John Jamieson]

"Even when the theory it is in direct contradiction to the physical evidence?"

I know of no other "physical evidence" that contradicts the 4 bug guys testimony. What is it?

[Valpal1]

Yes you did say that in your post $221.

This one is much more reflective of the truth. Thank you.

[John Jamieson]

I thought the point was obvious: LE/PRESS is often wrong. The "truth" is determined in court.

[VRWC_minion]

If someone else was involved, DW may be an accessory, not a killer.

The best evidence that there was no accessory is that Westerfield didn't attempt to enter into a plea bargain. He could use the information to avoid a death sentence. If he was willing to throw his inncocent son to the wolves surely he would sell out an accomplice to save his life.

[It's me]

What evidence was I denying???

[VRWC_minion]

I know of no other "physical evidence" that contradicts the 4 bug guys testimony. What is it?

The body, the and presence of parts of the body on Westerfield's clothing.

[John Jamieson]

I guess, I just don't trust the press to get it right. You seem to have blind faith in them.

I still don't see where it comes right out and says: "DW said he knows where the body is".

If I called your house and said, "We know you did it. I'll offer you life instead of the death penalty, if you tell us where the body is", and the PRESS was listening, would they write the same story about you?

[John Jamieson]

"The body, the and presence of parts of the body on Westerfield's clothing."

How does that determine a TIME OF DEATH, in contradiction to the bug guys. What was the time of death?

[NYCVirago]

Uhhhhh . . . . He overheard the real killers at a bar discussing where they hid the body. He went to call the police so they could arrest the killers, but no one answered the phone. "They must all be out harassing terminally ill marijuana patients instead of concentrating on real crime," he thought to himself grimly....

This should get "Post of the Day" honors.

[UCANSEE2]

I'm drawing the logical inferences from what is said:

Also known as swallowing the bait. You weren't there and don't know what was said or how it was handled, any more than John was. Yet, you ascribe more validity to YOUR interpretation of the biased article in the SD U-T. One that is written for the sole purpose of sensationalism.

You and the sharks go ahead and feast on the chum.

I prefer to wait patiently to see what comes of this.

[Valpal1]

>>>> If he was willing to throw his inncocent son to the wolves surely he
would sell out an accomplice to save his life. <<<<<

Hey, no fair using logic!!!