Posted on 09/17/2002 5:28:16 AM PDT by Bug
"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."
Would you still invite Westerfield into your home?
That is the problem with this case. What you said, your question. "PROVE HE'S NOT GUILTY". That, I believe, is the way that you approached this whole case, the way a majority of the public and all of the media viewed this case, and the way the Judge and Jury dealt with this case.
This is not how our JUSTICE system is supposed to operate, and that is what I am at odds with.
Another technique would be to have second-rate disc jockeys harp on the victims of the crime, and try to take attention away from the fact that Westerfield raped and murdered a child. Then have some sycophant plaster the forum with graphically intense threads, where he demonizes the victims, and deifies the pedophile.
It worked with many, and I see it's still working with some.
And it is the JURY'S opinion that he's going to fry.
The difference is, unlike you and me, the jury heard ALL the evidence. Twelve unique individuals, each with his or her prejudices and predilections.
And in the end, they said that he's guilty. What's more, he's SO guilty in their minds that he's going to die. This by a jury in a state that hands out the death penalty like Hillary! Rodham Clinton hands out tips: Very, very sparingly.
Now we discover, from interviews with the people involved, that Westerfield was going to confess until the state authorities--unfortunately for him--found the body first.
Your man is guilty, he was ALWAYS guilty, and he's now guilty beyond even a WHISKER of a doubt thanks to what we've now learned.
I'm sorry you take things like this so personally that you are unable to accept facts when they fly in the face of your purely emotion-based agenda.
But that's just tough.
Care to "honor" Mr. Westerfield with one of your inimitable creations? I know there are many here'd be glad to see it.
Speak for yourself.
Your man is guilty, he was ALWAYS guilty, and he's now guilty beyond even a WHISKER of a doubt thanks to what we've now learned.
You learned something. Many others already knew about this before it was turned into SPIN.
Now we discover, from interviews with the people involved, that Westerfield was going to confess until the state authorities--unfortunately for him--found the body first.
Once again, prove where it says he KNEW where the body was and was ready to sign. You can't.
That is enough evidence for me to beat him to death if it were my little girl.--regis"
I hear ya... I missed your reply earlier, was flipping back and forth between 2 threads. I felt that way when the child porn rape videos were shown to the jury. Some sick perv watched those for pleasure.
With respect to the attorney knowing the defenant is guilty, the lawer has an ethical obligation to continue to represent the defenant even if the attorney is conviced of his guilt. All defendants are entitled to a trial by the Constitution; even the guilty ones. They are also allowed legal counsel.
Most lay people fail to understand the roles of the players in a criminal proceeding. The role of the defense attorney is too insure that the case against the Defendant is real (done so by challenging the governments evidence)and to put the Defendants case before a jury whos job it is to determine guilt or innocence.
If the law were otherwise, no lawyers would ever try to settle any cases.
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.